Customer Reviews

The Future of an Illusion

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Reading Freud is always refreshing -- not only is he a good writer, but he also has many deep psychological insights. In his 71 page text, "The Future of an Illusion," he tackles the subject of religion. A livelong atheist, Freud argues that religion is derived from a child-like sense of helplessness in the world. Its purpose, he says, is to explain the sometimes-unfathomable world, to provide societal order, and to give comfort and happiness (particularly for the "the masses" and the poor, uneducated and oppressed). Although Freud wants to reshape civilization's relationship with religion, he also recognizes that widespread atheism could undermine societal stability. Overall, this is a good, quick read -- perfect for those interested in religion/atheism, psychology and the intersection between the two.

The common perception of Sigmund Freud is that he was a pioneering psychiatrist with too much focus on the sexual aspects of human existence. However, he was very much a product of the European culture of the last decades of the nineteenth century. In this book, his focus is on religion and its role in civilization.
Freud considers religion to be an illusion, but one that is necessary. He argues that without some form of moralistic rudder, humans would be in a death struggle for resources until eventually nearly all would be killed. Therefore, in order for civilization to be possible, a code of behavior must exist, which generates the necessary order and cooperation. This requisite behavior was codified in formal religions, where people are taught to suppress their animal desires for goods, sex and sustenance, so that all will get a share and conflict is avoided. The payback for your deeds takes place after you die, where good deeds are rewarded with a place in heaven and evil deeds by a place of punishment. Freud notes that delaying the reward until after death then guarantees that the social behavior will last throughout ones life.
I recently read the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. In that book, Dawkins argues that much of our altruistic behavior can be explained by simple formulas whereby the behavior leads to the presence of more copies of our genes. If this is combined with the valid points that Freud makes in this book, then it is possible that religious belief is coded in our genes. It is an interesting proposition and Freud's arguments are strong. I enjoyed reading this book and came away with a new appreciation for the quality of Freud's intellect.

This short book is well worth the plunge. It gives a psychoanalytic answer to the questions, Why God? and Why we still need a god? The book, written late in Freud's career, remains controversial mostly because of the nature of the subject matter. However, one should not be surprised that Freud's analysis ends as it does - suggesting that the world might be better off without religion. Many reviewers attribute this conclusion to the fact that Freud himself was not a religious man. However, another point of view might be equally valid: any psychoanalytic analysis of religion -- even by a theist -- would likely have come to the same conclusion.

In fact, Freud's conclusion -- that religion is an illusion born out of a need to surmount fear of the unknown, with its central component being a "father complex" - - is not far removed from, and actually resonates with, that of other scientists -- in particular with John F. Schumaker's "The Wings of Illusion," as well as his much deeper "The Corruption of Reality," which carries these ideas much further; or even Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained." For a refreshing opposing point of view that is also scientific, I found Peter Berger's Rumors of Angels a sensitive counterbalance to Freud's non-emotional approach.

While this was not Freud's best work, neither is it his worse. Given his Civilizations and its Discontents, it would be difficult to imagine him not having left a firm statement on the psychoanalytic nature of religion.

Because it is Freud, it deserves Five Stars.

.
This is Freud's scientific analysis of religion. Religion, along with government and social, moral and ethical codes, or, civilization act as removing man from his true instinctal and destructive nature into a civil society. Religion is a neccessary illusion derived from men's wishes.

Freud can be applauded and admired as a great thinker and psychoanalyst. This is an essential book to read. Yet Freud misses out on the mystical experience, the religious or psychal ability to perceive the irrational, the awe of the numenous, the perceived knowledge apart from rational thinking and intellectual analysis. Or in Rudolph Otto's title, "the idea of the holy."

Freud ends his book, on page 71 with:

"No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion
it would be to suppose that what science
cannot give us we can get elsewhere."

So Freud was amazingly accurate on one religious foundation: human ability to create wishes and to civilize himself and in contrast Freud was missing a great deal in the mystical, the non-rational element, thus he discarded all religion as a universally accepted solution to the conflicts that arise in childhood relation to the father. While this may have some validity, it misses completely the symbolic mythological teachings that attempt to convey what is claimed universal to be real religious experience. This is where Freud leaves off and Carl Jung continues.

In Freud's "The Future of an Illusion," he attempts to establish human motives for the creation of religion. If you hadn't guessed, Freud was a diehard atheist. He recognizes religion and an all-seeing, all-knowing man in the sky as an illusion to compensate for the mortality of our given father figures and as a divine system of reward and punishment for one's actions necessary for any society to function.

Most people will live to see their father die. Rather than move on and accept responsibility for his own life, man invented a fallback -- GOD. It was easier to, rather than adapt to a life without a strong but ultimately fair authoritative figure, setup and eternal epitome of "daddy."

As many philosophers have explored, man is naturally self-serving and anti-social. Without any reliable system to prevent destructive, anti-social behavior, society invented punishment for these actions, inescapable punishment that lasts eternally. Without this divine, angry-hand-of-God type punishment system, today's society simply could not exist.

Though Freud sees religion as an illusion- the paper bag that man pulls over his head to make life easier- which must be eradicated, I tend to see it more as a blessing from generations-passed. Though many people are intelligent enough to understand that their actions must be suitable for society simply for the sake of society, most are not. Further, most people are not strong enough to deal with the inevitable loss of their father figure. It is religion that allows them to function in society, and they are rewarded with the happiness that other aspects of the illusion provide (ever-lasting father, reward of heaven, etc.). If these "sheep", as some will call them, are intellectually dull enough to believe something merely because it is what their parents believed, then they would not, most likely, be acute enough to recognize that they must renounce their self-serving instincts to better server the common good.

This book is definitely worth reading. Fortunately, religion is a self-reinforcing delusion and people like Mr. Shives will read it knowing from the start that it will be brimming with blasphemy-- crimethink, and therefore read it with closed eyes. We will never run out of sheep.

In his 27 Feb 2006 review of Freud's The Future of an Illusion, Roger Schmeeckle misrepresents Freud's explanation (on pages 38-42 of this Norton publication) between Illusion and Delusion.

Roger correctly identified Freud's concept of Delusion as "something that is believed that is not true" -- but then oversimplifies by stating that Freud said an Illusion is "something that may be true or false, but is believed because we want to believe it."

This oversimplification ignores what Freud goes on to say, "Illusions need not be necessarily false - that is to say unrealizable or in contradiction to reality. For instance, a middle-class girl may have the illusion that a prince will come and marry her. This is possible; and a few such cases have occurred. That the Messiah will come is much less likely. Whether one classifies this belief as illusion or something analogous to delusion will depend on one's personal attitude."

The point being, that while the "absolute" truth or falsity of an illusion is debatable - common sense and reason enable us to infer or deduce where the truth actually lies. For instance, it IS possible that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow (as I am unable to prove something false which has yet to occur), but I would be a fool and utterly devoid of reason and intellect to presume that it will occur.

Roger then asserts that Freud was "not so much atheistic as irreligious." That Freud was irreligious is certain (what atheist wouldn't be) -- but I do not understand how anyone can read The Future of an Illusion and not easily conclude that the author was a confirmed atheist. The entire work is a testament to atheism. Accordingly, it is absurd to suggest that because Freud does not simply state "I do not believe in God" there is reason to infer that he may have believed in one.

Roger continues by arguing that Freud had a "bias" or "prejudice" against religion, whereby Freud's "wish" for there to be no God led him into his own Illusions of atheism. This is quite a stretch and a distortion of Freud's dissertation -- which has at its core the fundamental assertion of reason and the power of the intellect to overcome humankind's infantile and primitive need for "wish fulfillment" in the form of a protective and benevolent God.

And in a final shot, Roger accusing Freud of being a prisoner of his times -- a subject of "materialistic determinism" -- and for not having investigated or being familiar with "the evidence and reasoning of those who defend their own religious belief."

Yet, that Freud was all too familiar with and understanding of the nature and roots of religious beliefs is the hallmark of The Future of an Illusion. That he might have been a "materialistic determinist" is unknown to me -- but that he was a genius as well as great "Humanist" with a profound regard for and understanding of the Human Race seems clear.

My only trouble with this book is that it is short. Freud shows that atheism isn't necessarily negative. On the way to that he points out the nature of belief and how it comes up short psycologically even if religion is sort of useful. I prefer Freud to Nietzsche for his socially positive atheism. You may too.

Turning in his later life to discussions of modernity and problems of civilization, Freud tried to explain the role and origins of religion. To be sure, this is not one of Freud's better works, not is it one for which he is or should be better known. His work on psychotherapy and his subsequent work on the above mentioned problems of modernity are what he is, justifiably, known for.

Future of an Illusion must be taken with a grain of salt. While it is helpful in understanding the way Freud thought, it is less helpful in understanding anything about religion. For Freud, religion was merely the expression of a psychosis that we would, with development and proper education, soon see the end of. In this way, he is in line with, but less nuanced than, writers of his time who were overly reductionistic in explaining the origins of religion and less than flattering in the evaluations of its impact on society (cf. Marx, Feuerbach, etc.).

Why two stars? How do i have the gall to give Freud two stars? Easy. This book succumbs to a presuppositionalist dilemma: its premise is its conclusion. Religion is false and therefore it is untrue. Because it is untrue, as we seek deeper truths religion will cease to exist. Such argumentation, to my mind, is rationally unsatisfying.

Don't let his legacy fool you.

Throughout this book Freud responds to would-be criticism to his views and claims which i thought were all apt arguments against the points Freud was trying to make. This was definitely one book that i was sad to see end. I felt that a lot more could have been said and that it was cut a bit short. While the ending quote, stated by another reviewer, seems to draw the most important pieces of this book together and ends it well, it was still disappointingly short. Keep in mind, Freud's opinions and conclusion that are illustrated throughout this book, and all his others are all products of his many years as the father of psychoanalysis.

The topic of this book seems to be very touchy, something you can't talk about with people, Freud basically states that you're not going to convince people otherwise when they strongly believe in something, as people often do religion. As an Atheist myself, i was more compelled to believe and be encouraged by these arguments and views on religion.

The approach Freud took towards this is not merely the effect of religion on the single person, but on a civilization. Why religion comes about, and why it seems to be needed by that civilization. This is a larger form of religious effect than i had previously read about, which just made this book even more interesting to me.

The most interesting point that was made, in my opinion, is Freud's argument for law over commandment or rule. As an Atheist, i always considered the most important role of a religion on a society (I'll use Christianity as my example) was to employ strong unchangeable, yet simple and morally correct rules, or commandments. These created no 'wiggle' room for any believer, it was either do not kill, or go to hell and suffer eternal damnation. This added a long term incentive with, to the believer, strong consequences. However, in the view of Sigmund Freud, it is actually better to have this as a law, rather than a commandment, because "the civilization will focus on bettering the law rather than abolishing it." I'm strongly inclined to change my view on this topic after reading this book. When given and unchangeable rule, such as a commandment, people will naturally appose it, and seek its destruction. While this is not always true, the basis for this argument makes sense. When you were young, and your parents made an irrefutable law that you are not to eat chocolate at seven in the evening, all you could think about is wanting to eat that chocolate, even though you knew it would keep you awake all night. If this was NOT an irrefutable law, but was just a rule that is somewhat changeable, something that has a middle ground, people will naturally seek to better this rule, rather than get rid of it completely. I'm certain there are arguments against this train of thought, as there is always an opposing force. This book has introduced several opinions that differ even my own. Most of which is find extremely fascinating as they are yet another way of looking at things.

Overall, this is a very well written book. As all Freud's book, it takes a bit of thought while reading it, and it's not recommended for light reading. Though if you're a believer of any religion with a relatively open mind, read this book, think about it, then move on.

As per my golden principle when it comes to any religion that worships or believes in a god or gods. A deity is merely a concept, though it is a special kind if concept, it's one that cannot be proven, not can it be labeled impossible. It is something we'll never know the truth about, and i proudly recognize that fact.

If anyone actually took the time to read this review, I thank you for your time and patience, and enjoy the book!

5/5 stars.

Freud's concise treatise on the foundation and future of religion should be read by anyone who hopes to join spiritual discussions. It's short, less than seventy pages plus front and back matter. Some of its confident assertions are challenged by new science. Yet it remains a foundational text to study religion as a natural phenomenon.

In the opening pages Freud makes sweeping pronouncements about predicting the future of human society, though he assumes more humble goals as the book progresses. He speculates on how communities, though the psychological processes he previously identified in individuals, control their circumstances by investing events with divine import. And he suggests that the root of religion is fear of death.

Some of Freud's claims are contradicted by science. Few sociologists think now that the basis of civilization lies in curbing the desire to kill. The new dominant theory is that women invented civilization by dividing early farm labor. Similarly, the afterlife is a late addition to Abrahamic theology, only dating back around the time of the Maccabees. And Freud's focus on proscriptive paternal sky-god religions overlooks maternal earth religions.

Yet these are quibbles. Far more interesting is Freud's process, by which he tests hypotheses of religion's purposes, how it is likely to evolve, and how society would change if religion died quietly. Aside from whether his hypotheses are true, they challenge both believers and doubters. Even this professing Christian is overcome with the joy of intellectual accomplishment in Freud's disputation.

If readers take this book as an addition to a continuing debate, rather than a fixed answer, they'll enjoy its scholarly rigor and thoughtfulness. Anyone who wants to discuss faith and doubt in our scientific world, whatever their view, should come armed with the precepts Freud defines in this book.