Leave your reactions and thoughts about Erich Fromm’s book on Psychoanalysis and Religion here
This entry was posted
on Saturday, October 18th, 2008 at 10:13 pm and is filed under Psychology of Religion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
6 Responses to “Fromm’s Psychoanalysis and Religion”
The point was raised in class by Mike (Im bad with names, but he was 4 to the left of me) that we shouldn’t attempt to analyze the deeds of old historic figures, such as Jesus, in psychological terms because of missing data, original author embellishment, and over-all time since the events in question to the present time. I agree with that. However, if we agree on that, then we should also agree that all of those deeds that jesus performed were also not miraculous deeds and not of a deified character at all - they were merely embellishments of the original authors, false interpretations of authors over time because of missing data in the record, and a factor of the length of time from Jesus’ doing the deeds to us writing about and interpreting them now.
Sure, a man may have existed that walked on water, turned a few loaves of fish and some bread into enough for many people, turned water into wine, brought the dead back to life, cured incurable illness, and on and on. But, based on the above logic, what’s more believeable, that this man existed and did those things, or that he existed and did not do those things?
This is by far not a new issue at all. Maybe Jesus was not outright viewed as insane. However, the truth of his miraculous deeds, and of the existence and need for miracles in general was often questioned.
My favorite argument against miracles comes from the British empiricist David Hume. If memory serves, Hume wrote in the 18th century, and his following argument was in response to the deists of the time who often said that man knows so little of the world and how it was created, how could they also possibly hope to understand the nature of true miracles. And with that Hume replies that we should accept the lesser of two miracles (i.e., the more likely scenario to unfold based on our experience) and that if presented with testimony of the miracle, even from a truly believable and respectable source, we should then simply suspend our judgment of the “miracle.” Wait, it gets better, Hume also says, if I remember correctly (and you can google Hume + miraculous to read more) that humans are basically dumb, and dazzed and drawn to the miraculous - and the sources of old, forget em’, they all were from barbarous nations and times of tormoil and unrest - not reliable sources.
Eh, so, I rambled on a bit there. Not sure the whole Hume point was necessary, but I think it’s interesting. Again, I agree with what Mike said, but agreeing has its ramifications. I’m pretty sure Fromm would agree with me, and with Hume.
The points that Tom brings up are very poignant. One of the most complex realities of a historian that also has religious views is whether or not they consider themselves a true believer of the faith even though they have the resources to disprove some of the core beliefs within the religion. This is something that constantly challenges academic people bringing them into conflict with everything that they have raised to believe. This whole idea of blind faith seems nonsensical when, as Mike and than later Tom have discussed, that the most dominant faiths of our time rely on texts that have been revised and rewritten several years after the fact. I believe I brought this up in class, however, given my last fumble over my words I wouldn’t be surprised if my point was lost, but my biggest concern with religion is that they tell you that the truth and the way to God is through the word of the lord, aka the Bible. I have always had a serious problem with that. You mean I am supposed to base everything that I believe in on a book that was written by God knows who (pun intended) and how many years ago? No only that, this very book has been translated from Hebrew and there are also different versions circulating that could be interpreted differently.
I think Fromm had it right… that religions should be seen for what they are, a means of keeping people rooted in doing good deeds for the betterment of mankind. Once they don’t do that anymore, they cannot be considered truly religious.
Anyway… that is my own take on things but I am still conflicted myself.
Regardless, Fromm’s analysis was extremely insightful and really made me think. When he wrote that atheists are perhaps the most humanistic and excepted people, it really opened my eyes to a new understanding. I liked Freud, but I loved Fromm and I am anxious to read more by him.
Well, as far as Fromm is concerned, I think I said all I wanted to say about him in class. But it bears repeating, I think he was bang on with pretty much everything. Again, I think once we as humans start getting hung up on the nature of God and specific tenets, then we’ve lost the heart of religion. I think the most profound thing Fromm said in his book was, “[Humankind] finds that the question is not whether man returns to religion and believes in God but whether he lives love and thinks truth. If he does so the symbol systems he uses are of secondary importance.” This is a viewpoint that I have definitely incorporated into my own belief system over the last couple of years, primarily because I have so many atheist and Muslim friends who are such good people. Any God who condemns such people to eternal damnation is not worthy of my appreciation. And whether my selectivity in my Christianity undermines me as a Christian is of no concern to me, because afterall, only God can judge me. If I am wrong and there is a Hell, at least I won’t be lonely and will be in good company.
Tom brought up Hume and I would just like to add that Hume is probably my favorite philosopher of all time. Anybody who hasn’t read him should definitely do so. His strict empiricism is way ahead of his time, and just as bone-chilling and controversial today as it was back then. Essentially, if you follow his logic, one begins to question whether there is even such as thing as “reality”. Thankfully, as a counter-point to Hume, we have Soren Kierkegaard. Any atheist who has trouble understanding why otherwise bright, intelligent, witty individuals can be theists should read “Fear and Trembling”. I brought him up briefly in class on Monday, for I could definitely see some of the influences of Kierkegaard in Fromm’s writing. But I can hardly do Kierkegaard justice; suffice to say, I couldn’t have inner peace being a theist if I had never read Kierkegaard.
I think Kierkegaard’s stance addresses Tom’s criticism of how we interpret the figure of Jesus somewhat. I agree, it hardly seems fair to exclude Jesus from historical and psychological analysis due to lack of propinquity, yet accept all of the Gospels at face value. I can’t prove Jesus was the Messiah, no Christian can. But again, nobody can prove he wasn’t, despite how farsical the stories sound to our modern minds. There is still a lot of phenomena that goes unexplained by modern science in our world today. Personally, until a physicist can tell me what was going on before the Big Bang, then I don’t feel foolish believing in my concept of God, because without answers for everything, any line drawn between reality and fantasy is completely arbitrary in my opinion.
Julia, I liked Freud as well although I really didn’t want to agree with his view. I have an easier time agreeing with Fromm. His positive twist on religious belief is more palitable. I agree that Fromm’s analysis was insightful. I think when he mentions atheists are humantic perhaps we should we really be calling them people who are spiritually centered, or just spiritual. We discussed this earlier in the semester and loosely determined that being spiritual could mean being religious, or not. It didn’t matter, what it defined is the person who is attempting to be centered and trying to be the best person they can be for the sake of themselves and others. And as Peck mentions in his text, has a broader world view. All may be defined as religious persons, they just may not belong to what we may have previously believed to be a defined and accepted (or not accepted!)religious group.
When Fromm made the distinction between authoritarian and humanist versions of religion I thought he was spot on. While it was something that I had thought about before, now that I have seen it in print it appears very obvious that these are two types of religion exist and are appealing to very different types of people. This shapes their world view and in turn how they treat others. It explains a lot about how people deal with others, which political parties they support and what they think is best for the future.
As I was reading these theories, I kept thinking about theories of government and what people think is best. Going back to two classics, Thomas Hobbes, someone I would classify with an authoritarian view of the world, believed that security was the primary goal of government at the expense of individual freedoms. To Hobbes, government should be like a Leviathan (see the Book of Job) that causes people to tremble with fear and prevents people from attacking. John Locke had a more humanitarian view of government and claimed that the governments job was to protect peoples freedoms. He believed that people were everywhere born with natural rights that included, life, liberty and property. If this sounds familiar then it is because Thomas Jefferson ripped off Locke’s ideas when writing the Declaration of Independence. (Where were the rules of plagarism then?) Locke also beleived that if a government did not do its job, then revolution was justified to oust a bad government and put one in its place that would do the job.
Not to give the ideas of my project away, but I would argue that the founders and early settlers (minus the Puritans) were humanistic in their religion. The idea of religious tolerance abounded in the early colonies if you think about the Quakers and many of the groups who came here to escape religious persecution. Within the last twenty years or so, we have been moving more towards a Hobbesian view of government. I beleive that because of the rise of the authoritarian religious right and their impact on the political system, now our government is mirroring the authoritarian world view. Few will argue that the priorities of government have gone from protecting freedoms to curtailing freedoms in the name of security, especially since 9/11. I argue that this is a direct result of a change of religious ideologies. Then again, I may just be reading too much into things.
The other thing that I thought was right on about Fromm was his distinction between ‘talking the talk and walking the walk’. I have known many people who profess to be of a certain faith that do not act in accordance to their spoken beliefs. In church on Sunday, back sinning on Monday….. is a philosophy that is ok for many people who profess to have been saved, or found God or some other deity. It seems to be the herd mentality that requires people to be concerned more with outward appearance rather than internal substance and that is unfortunate for society as a whole.
It seems to be the herd mentality that requires people to be concerned more with outward appearance rather than internal substance and that is unfortunate for society as a whole.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:00 am
The point was raised in class by Mike (Im bad with names, but he was 4 to the left of me) that we shouldn’t attempt to analyze the deeds of old historic figures, such as Jesus, in psychological terms because of missing data, original author embellishment, and over-all time since the events in question to the present time. I agree with that. However, if we agree on that, then we should also agree that all of those deeds that jesus performed were also not miraculous deeds and not of a deified character at all - they were merely embellishments of the original authors, false interpretations of authors over time because of missing data in the record, and a factor of the length of time from Jesus’ doing the deeds to us writing about and interpreting them now.
Sure, a man may have existed that walked on water, turned a few loaves of fish and some bread into enough for many people, turned water into wine, brought the dead back to life, cured incurable illness, and on and on. But, based on the above logic, what’s more believeable, that this man existed and did those things, or that he existed and did not do those things?
This is by far not a new issue at all. Maybe Jesus was not outright viewed as insane. However, the truth of his miraculous deeds, and of the existence and need for miracles in general was often questioned.
My favorite argument against miracles comes from the British empiricist David Hume. If memory serves, Hume wrote in the 18th century, and his following argument was in response to the deists of the time who often said that man knows so little of the world and how it was created, how could they also possibly hope to understand the nature of true miracles. And with that Hume replies that we should accept the lesser of two miracles (i.e., the more likely scenario to unfold based on our experience) and that if presented with testimony of the miracle, even from a truly believable and respectable source, we should then simply suspend our judgment of the “miracle.” Wait, it gets better, Hume also says, if I remember correctly (and you can google Hume + miraculous to read more) that humans are basically dumb, and dazzed and drawn to the miraculous - and the sources of old, forget em’, they all were from barbarous nations and times of tormoil and unrest - not reliable sources.
Eh, so, I rambled on a bit there. Not sure the whole Hume point was necessary, but I think it’s interesting. Again, I agree with what Mike said, but agreeing has its ramifications. I’m pretty sure Fromm would agree with me, and with Hume.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
The points that Tom brings up are very poignant. One of the most complex realities of a historian that also has religious views is whether or not they consider themselves a true believer of the faith even though they have the resources to disprove some of the core beliefs within the religion. This is something that constantly challenges academic people bringing them into conflict with everything that they have raised to believe. This whole idea of blind faith seems nonsensical when, as Mike and than later Tom have discussed, that the most dominant faiths of our time rely on texts that have been revised and rewritten several years after the fact. I believe I brought this up in class, however, given my last fumble over my words I wouldn’t be surprised if my point was lost, but my biggest concern with religion is that they tell you that the truth and the way to God is through the word of the lord, aka the Bible. I have always had a serious problem with that. You mean I am supposed to base everything that I believe in on a book that was written by God knows who (pun intended) and how many years ago? No only that, this very book has been translated from Hebrew and there are also different versions circulating that could be interpreted differently.
I think Fromm had it right… that religions should be seen for what they are, a means of keeping people rooted in doing good deeds for the betterment of mankind. Once they don’t do that anymore, they cannot be considered truly religious.
Anyway… that is my own take on things but I am still conflicted myself.
Regardless, Fromm’s analysis was extremely insightful and really made me think. When he wrote that atheists are perhaps the most humanistic and excepted people, it really opened my eyes to a new understanding. I liked Freud, but I loved Fromm and I am anxious to read more by him.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Well, as far as Fromm is concerned, I think I said all I wanted to say about him in class. But it bears repeating, I think he was bang on with pretty much everything. Again, I think once we as humans start getting hung up on the nature of God and specific tenets, then we’ve lost the heart of religion. I think the most profound thing Fromm said in his book was, “[Humankind] finds that the question is not whether man returns to religion and believes in God but whether he lives love and thinks truth. If he does so the symbol systems he uses are of secondary importance.” This is a viewpoint that I have definitely incorporated into my own belief system over the last couple of years, primarily because I have so many atheist and Muslim friends who are such good people. Any God who condemns such people to eternal damnation is not worthy of my appreciation. And whether my selectivity in my Christianity undermines me as a Christian is of no concern to me, because afterall, only God can judge me. If I am wrong and there is a Hell, at least I won’t be lonely and will be in good company.
Tom brought up Hume and I would just like to add that Hume is probably my favorite philosopher of all time. Anybody who hasn’t read him should definitely do so. His strict empiricism is way ahead of his time, and just as bone-chilling and controversial today as it was back then. Essentially, if you follow his logic, one begins to question whether there is even such as thing as “reality”. Thankfully, as a counter-point to Hume, we have Soren Kierkegaard. Any atheist who has trouble understanding why otherwise bright, intelligent, witty individuals can be theists should read “Fear and Trembling”. I brought him up briefly in class on Monday, for I could definitely see some of the influences of Kierkegaard in Fromm’s writing. But I can hardly do Kierkegaard justice; suffice to say, I couldn’t have inner peace being a theist if I had never read Kierkegaard.
I think Kierkegaard’s stance addresses Tom’s criticism of how we interpret the figure of Jesus somewhat. I agree, it hardly seems fair to exclude Jesus from historical and psychological analysis due to lack of propinquity, yet accept all of the Gospels at face value. I can’t prove Jesus was the Messiah, no Christian can. But again, nobody can prove he wasn’t, despite how farsical the stories sound to our modern minds. There is still a lot of phenomena that goes unexplained by modern science in our world today. Personally, until a physicist can tell me what was going on before the Big Bang, then I don’t feel foolish believing in my concept of God, because without answers for everything, any line drawn between reality and fantasy is completely arbitrary in my opinion.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Julia, I liked Freud as well although I really didn’t want to agree with his view. I have an easier time agreeing with Fromm. His positive twist on religious belief is more palitable. I agree that Fromm’s analysis was insightful. I think when he mentions atheists are humantic perhaps we should we really be calling them people who are spiritually centered, or just spiritual. We discussed this earlier in the semester and loosely determined that being spiritual could mean being religious, or not. It didn’t matter, what it defined is the person who is attempting to be centered and trying to be the best person they can be for the sake of themselves and others. And as Peck mentions in his text, has a broader world view. All may be defined as religious persons, they just may not belong to what we may have previously believed to be a defined and accepted (or not accepted!)religious group.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
When Fromm made the distinction between authoritarian and humanist versions of religion I thought he was spot on. While it was something that I had thought about before, now that I have seen it in print it appears very obvious that these are two types of religion exist and are appealing to very different types of people. This shapes their world view and in turn how they treat others. It explains a lot about how people deal with others, which political parties they support and what they think is best for the future.
As I was reading these theories, I kept thinking about theories of government and what people think is best. Going back to two classics, Thomas Hobbes, someone I would classify with an authoritarian view of the world, believed that security was the primary goal of government at the expense of individual freedoms. To Hobbes, government should be like a Leviathan (see the Book of Job) that causes people to tremble with fear and prevents people from attacking. John Locke had a more humanitarian view of government and claimed that the governments job was to protect peoples freedoms. He believed that people were everywhere born with natural rights that included, life, liberty and property. If this sounds familiar then it is because Thomas Jefferson ripped off Locke’s ideas when writing the Declaration of Independence. (Where were the rules of plagarism then?) Locke also beleived that if a government did not do its job, then revolution was justified to oust a bad government and put one in its place that would do the job.
Not to give the ideas of my project away, but I would argue that the founders and early settlers (minus the Puritans) were humanistic in their religion. The idea of religious tolerance abounded in the early colonies if you think about the Quakers and many of the groups who came here to escape religious persecution. Within the last twenty years or so, we have been moving more towards a Hobbesian view of government. I beleive that because of the rise of the authoritarian religious right and their impact on the political system, now our government is mirroring the authoritarian world view. Few will argue that the priorities of government have gone from protecting freedoms to curtailing freedoms in the name of security, especially since 9/11. I argue that this is a direct result of a change of religious ideologies. Then again, I may just be reading too much into things.
The other thing that I thought was right on about Fromm was his distinction between ‘talking the talk and walking the walk’. I have known many people who profess to be of a certain faith that do not act in accordance to their spoken beliefs. In church on Sunday, back sinning on Monday….. is a philosophy that is ok for many people who profess to have been saved, or found God or some other deity. It seems to be the herd mentality that requires people to be concerned more with outward appearance rather than internal substance and that is unfortunate for society as a whole.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:35 am
It seems to be the herd mentality that requires people to be concerned more with outward appearance rather than internal substance and that is unfortunate for society as a whole.