CHAPTER 4FREUD'S PROBLEM WITH RELIGION: THE CASE OF CHRISTIANITY Sigmund Freud was a genius. His ability to comprehend and utilize such disparate disciplines as medicine, psychology, archaeology, anthropology, and sociology makes the intellectual world incomprehensible without his gifts and contributions. Nevertheless, when it comes to the subject of "religion," many people feel that his views were the product of scientific study rather than his assumptions for which his "scientific study" provided justification. His scientific study ignored crucial data available to him; his rigor in the field of psychoanalysis did not extend to the far more important subject of religion, particularly the veracity of the Resurrection of Christ and, hence, the veracity of Christianity itself. This paper seeks to show the veracity of Christianity by reference to two empirically verifiable data. They are (1) the claims of Christ; (2) the evidence of the Resurrection, upon which Christianity hinges. If the Resurrection occurred, then it is very likely that the claims of Christ are valid.
LITERATURE It is noteworthy that while Freud was willing to accept the word of his patients, albeit with his own discernment and evaluation, as to events and dreams, he would not do the same for Moses and the other prophets. This is particularly noteworthy in that many of their prophecies have come true (Payne 1980). Freud took his patients seriously, though not necessarily literally, but did not take the prophets, biblical reporters and the Apostles seriously. Perhaps he denigrated religion, as he had the Seduction Theory, that the sexual abuse of children accounted for their later problems in living, due to its lack of acceptance among intellectuals (Masson 1984:134-135). Most psychoanalysts, as well as Freud himself, were and are convinced that "without the abandonment of this theory, the development of psychoanalysis would not have been possible (Masson 1984:12)." Freud very much wanted his new "science" of psychoanalysis to become accepted in the scientific community and by rejecting his previously held belief that many children were sexually abused by their parent or parents (an idea that was met with revulsion in the scientific community) as well as by rejecting the validity of Christianity (a belief system not consistent with the assumptions of most of the scientists and psychoanalysts of the time) he helped ensure its acceptance. He reduced religion to "needs" and "feelings," and immature ones at that. He said, "I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection (Freud 1962:19)." In other words, religion is used as a figment of immature people's imaginations to ameliorate the dangers which the ego recognizes as threatening it from the external world, as well as the inevitable decay of one's own body. As he stated, "...man's helplessness remains and along with it his longing for his father, and the gods. The gods retain their threefold task: they must exorcise the terrors of nature, they must reconcile men to the cruelty of Fate, particularly as it is shown in death, and they must compensate them for the sufferings and privations which a civilized life in common has imposed on them (Freud 1962:22)." Freud, instead, elevated "reason" to the place of God, which becomes God to the scientist who then has no need for the "antiquated' religions that "immature" people use to elevate a deity or deities to be a propitiationfor the individual’s protection. As he said, "There is no appeal to a court above that of reason (Freud 1962:35)." Beyond the above, he accused religious ideas as having "incontrovertible lack of authentication," yet it still exercises "the strongest possible influence on mankind (Freud 1962:37)." Religion is seen as an illusion, as delusional, lacking reason, a narcotic, a sign of immature wish fulfillment, yet at the same time it is seen as exercising an extraordinarily strong influence on mankind. He viewed it as "the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity; like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus Complex, out of the relation to the father (Freud 1962:55)." Agreeing with the Sociologist Emile Durkheim he said, "The totem is the visible representation of the social religion.... It embodies the community, which is the real object of veneration (Freud 1946:147)." He went on to say that the totem feast reenacts the father murder and sees the totem feast corresponding to the Christian Communion (Freud 1967:169). There can be no doubt as to the parallel between the totem feast, where the individual thus partakes of the power of the totem, and the Christian Communion. However, isomorphism does not equal identity. Moreover, if Christianity is delusional, there are a tremendous amount of mature Christian scholars, and others, who need no narcotic, who also extol reason, and are quite mature both chronologically and mentally. Freud used selective data to support his assumptions about religion, here detailing Christianity. The following section presents data that Freud ignored, perhaps because they did not support his assumptions decrying Christianity's historical accuracy, as well as his desire to gain credibility in the scientific community for psychoanalysis. DATA The faith in Christianity is based upon empirically verifiable data. Christ made certain claims about Himself whom no other respected religious leader has ever made. First of all, He was the object of worship, prayer and praise from the very beginning of His ministry, unlike any other human being who ever lived (John 20:28, Acts 7:59-60, Acts 9:14-21, Hebrews 1:6.). (For non-biblical sources see Scott 1981: vol.1.). Moreover, He considered Himself to be morally perfect. Every other religious leader recognized humility to be the hallmark of a spiritual person. Mohammed said he was just a messenger from Allah, and wrote these messages in the Koran; Buddah said he was not God and did not want his followers to make any images of him. Confucius was a great social scientist but made no claims to divinity. But Christ did make that claim! He said He was the only way to God, He was the bread from heaven, He was the water of life. For example, He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6)." He presumed upon Himself the right to forgive sins. No other sane human being ever did such a thing. He took for granted no moral shortcoming in Himself (John 17). In Matthew 12 He calls Himself "Lord of the Sabbath"; in Matthew 28:18 He says "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Furthermore, He claimed to be God (John 8:58; Luke 10:18, as just two examples). Finally, He said it was necessary for Him to die so that ransom for our sins could be paid (Matthew 20:28) and He claimed that He would rise again three days after His death (John 2:19). It is for this reason that the Christian faith begins with faith in the historically verifiable fact of the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). Indeed, the entire case for Christianity is based on asserted historical facts (Acts 2:22-24,32,36; Acts 3:12-15; Acts 4:8-1 0; Acts 5:25-32). Christ is set apart by His resurrection from the dead (Matthew27:57; Matthew 28; Luke 23:50-Luke 24; John 19:38-John 20 and John 21; Acts 1:1-11). It is the same man who taught He was perfect, placed all authority in Himself, claimed an eternal existence, said His death would redeem the whole world, made eternal life in heaven dependent upon taking Him as one's supreme Master, and who said when He died He would rise again in three days, that the New Testament asserts is also risen from the dead (Scott 1981: vols. 2 and 3). As C. S. Lewis succinctly stated, Christ was either Lord, liar or lunatic. (Lewis: 1952:40-41). We now turn to examine the evidence for the Resurrection upon which Christianity is based. Christians preached, proclaimed and believed a total message: (I) the Resurrection; (2) the seen appearances of Christ after the Resurrection; (3) the ascension of Christ into heaven; (4) the fact of the empty tomb (Scott: 1981: vol.5). This is the total message of Christianity. Indeed, even the Jewish historian, Josephus, born 37 A. D. and not a Christian, attested to the Resurrection of Christ (Josephus: Antiquities, 18:33, as referenced in McDowell: 1979:82). Unfortunately, the evidence for the Resurrection and is not made explicit even by a noted theologian dealing with Freud's view of religion (Kung: 1979:96). However there is evidence! The most prominent theories concerning the Resurrection are the following. (1) The disciples stole the body--but if that were the case why would they risk almost certain death for a lie? (2) The Jewish leaders stole the body--but they clearly had no reason to do so, since they could easily make a lie out of Christianity and vindicate their position by producing the body, which they never did. (3) The Roman authorities stole the body--but they had no reason to do so, since they certainly wanted to keep good relations with the Jewish people and had no desire to see the cult of an itinerant Rabbi and preacher who claimed to be God spread; moreover, such a contention would not account for the seen appearances of Christ after the Resurrection. (4) Jesus was buried in the wrong tomb and it could not be found--but Scripture says He was buried in a known tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimethea (Matthew 27:60); in any case the Jewish authorities had a great deal of motivation to find the right tomb and put the lie to Christianity. (5) Jesus was not really dead when He was taken from the cross--you do not survive a Roman crucifixion, the Centurions knew when someone was dead, and the seen appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion were not of an emaciated, sickly man. (6) The disciples of Christ had mass hallucinations--if that were the case, why was the body of Jesus not produced, and how does one account for the empty tomb? (7) The disciples lied--this contention would presume, as did the first one, that they would be willing to suffer and die alone for a lie. (8) The disciples were honestly reporting what they saw and experienced the things they told--they were willing to suffer and die alone, proclaiming to their dying whispers that they had seen the risen Christ (Scott 1981: vol 5). Thus, the fundamental issue of the Resurrection boils down to the veracity of the reporters (Scott 1981: vol 6). As fantastic as it sounds, were these honest men, giving honest reports of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? In 1 Corinthians 15 the Apostle Paul reports that over five hundred people at one time had seen the risen Christ, many of whom were still alive at the time the account was written. It is important to note that this statement was written in the presence of hostile witnesses, as were the speeches of Peter proclaiming the risen Christ in the Book of Acts. At any time, if these statements were not true, they could and would have been refuted and Christianity would have been laid to rest, as were so many other cults and sects. Yet, in I Corinthians 15, Paul reported that these people had seen Christ's resurrection. Hence, we have to deal with the evidence of the disciples' honesty. Reporters such as Paul, Luke and Peter attest to Christ's resurrection and ascension into heaven, and that He did so by many "infallible proofs (Acts 1: 3)." The veracity of the reporters may be see in three ways. (1) The dramatic change of the disciples after the Resurrection. They were clearly changed for the better, which a lie is not likely to do. Peter was weak and cowardly before the Resurrection; after the Resurrection he became a rock of faith and preached under penalty of torture, imprisonment and death the risen Christ (Acts 2:14- 40). John was called a "son of thunder " for his selfishness and irate temper; after the Resurrection we see in his writings in the Bible that he became an embodiment of love and sensitivity. Thomas was a doubter; after the Resurrection and encountering the risen Christ, and feeling His wounds, he fell on his knees and worshiped Jesus as Lord and Master (John 20:28). James, Jesus' brother, was annoyed at Jesus for being an embarrassment to him and to his family; after the Resurrection, he is found preaching the Gospel and he describes himself as "a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ...(James 1:1)" (Scott 1981: vol 6). (2) Jesus' disciples suffered horrible persecutions after the Resurrection. Bartholomew was skinned alive with a whip; Andrew was crucified on St. Andrew’s cross; Peter was crucified upside down in Rome; Thomas was pierced through with a Brahman sword outside Madras, India; Philip was martyred in Hieropolis; James The Less was crucified in Egypt; Simon the Zealot was also crucified; Jude was martyred in Persia; James (of Zebedee) was beheaded in Judea in 44 A.D. (Scott 1981: Vol.6). It is not likely that these and other martyrs would suffer horribly and die for a lie. (3) In addition, very compelling evidence for the disciples' honesty is that these and many other martyrs suffered and died alone. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that a group of people would suffer and die for a lie so as not to be seen to "break" in front of their compatriots. It is inconceivable that individuals, perhaps never seeing each other again, would suffer and die for a lie, when all they would have to do was denounce Christ and no one would be any the wiser. They could then spare themselves suffering and save their lives and, if they ever saw one another again, just keep quiet about their defection. Data and logic strongly suggest that these were honest reporters who not only believed in what they were stating and preaching, but people who suffered and died alone for their beliefs and statements that they had seen the risen Christ (Scott 1981: vol 6).
CONCLUSION Freud ignored data that were available to him regarding the veracity of Christianity. His paradigm prevented him from seriously studying the evidence for the Resurrection, the foundation upon which Christianity is based. His elevation of "reason" did not extend to this evidence and, hence, his utterances concerning the validity of religion, in this case Christianity, are fallacious. In this context, what he called "reason" were his assumptions within the parameters of his paradigm concerning religion and, hence, not scientific, as he would have his readers believe. Just because a phenomenon, such as the Resurrection, seems implausible, does not necessarily mean it did not occur. The data for the evidence of the Resurrection and, therefore, the claims of Christ which are given credibility by this asserted historical event are extraordinarily compelling, and should have been examined by Freud as science, and not by his assumptions to perhaps further the well-being of the religion of psychoanalysis.
REFERENCES Bible, King James Version Freud, Sigmund Kung, Hans Lewis, C.S. Masson, Jeffrey McDowell, Josh Payne, J. Barton Scott, Gene |
