“When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life.”
– Sigmund Freud
“It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.”
– Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, 1927
“The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how a large number of people living today, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions.”
“The different religions have never overlooked the part played by the sense of guilt in civilization. What is more, they come forward with a claim…to save mankind from this sense of guilt, which they call sin.”
– Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1930
“Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.”
– Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, 1927
“Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.”
– Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism, 1939
Tags: Agnostic, Agnosticism, Atheism, Atheist, Bible, Doctrine, Dogma, God, Psychology, Quote, Religion, Science, Sigmund Freud, Skeptic, Theology
June 20, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
My favorite writing on religion accuses us of all being religious fanatics at one time or another. The brilliant Hafiz (as translated by Daniel Ladinsky) says:
What
Do sad people have in
Common?
It seems
They have all built a shrine
To the past
And often go there
And do a strange wail and
Worship.
What is the beginning of
Happiness?
It is to stop being
So religious
Like
That.
June 20, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
“When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life.”
This is exactly what I have found to be true since leaving religion behind. I may need to print this one out and frame it somewhere.
June 21, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
“Normal and Wholesome life.”???? Actions speak louder than words.
Is friend-assisted suicide considered wholesome living among atheists?
I’ll take my Christianity, thank-you Freud…
June 21, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
We had our dearly loved cat put down when his life was no longer worth living. It was the humane thing to do, but you religious fanatics wouldn`t even know the meaning of the word!
June 21, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
“Is friend-assisted suicide considered wholesome living among atheists?”
Where are you getting this from?
June 21, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Freud died by convincing his friend to assist him in suicide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
He claimed to have the answer to “Wholesome Living” (see above). My point is he obviously didn’t have the answer.
June 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm
You’re talking about euthanasia and I’m not surprised; this is one of the many topics that atheists and religious people have opposing viewpoints on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Clearly you people do not have the answer either.
P.S. No, I am NOT getting into a highly lengthy and tedious discussion about euthanasia here. To any lurker/poster, feel free to continue this discussion.
June 22, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Butterfly,
Crusades? Really? Those have been condemned, not held as a moral example. If this were a proper analogy Freud would have been condemned by atheists already. I don’t see that happening…
June 22, 2009 at 4:40 pm
True that, Freeware Gospel
Though I have met people who thinks that the Crusades/Jericho were justified killings, I’ll just ignore those nutheads for the time being.
The thing is, Freud was about to die; that was a fact and he, and everyone else, knew it. Furthermore, my guess here would be that a natural death from any type of cancer would be extremely painful and torturous.
So let’s see here, Freud was about to die for sure and he had two options before him:
1) Die in agony
2) Die a peaceful death
This is a no-brainer.
I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here, its not a case about how wholesome Freud’s life was; his life was over. He was gonna die no matter what. I don’t see why it should be so surprising that he chose euthanasia over a painful death.
June 22, 2009 at 4:50 pm
He was in his eighties and had had many operations for oral cancer. This is a complete red herring!
June 21, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
What Butterfly said… and… what does this have to do with my statement? I don’t remember mentioning or commenting on assisted suicide.
June 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
It was someone else`s comment – though why it was raised I also have no idea!!
June 20, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
Where do you find these quotes? They are quite good.
June 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
“The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how a large number of people living today, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions.”
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
just watch this, every single one, and we’ll see if this is true.
June 21, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
I really don`t know whether to laugh or cry!
June 20, 2009 at 4:53 pm |
I like your Photoshop skillzzz, BEattitude!
June 20, 2009 at 7:48 pm |
Thanks. I have many years of experience at it.
June 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
“The different religions have never overlooked the part played by the sense of guilt in civilization. What is more, they come forward with a claim…to save mankind from this sense of guilt, which they call sin.”
Perhaps it is the other way around: the guilt comes from the knowledge that we are captive to sin. Christ saves us from sin, not guilt.
June 20, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
Hey Paul M,
This is kinda off topic but can you give me a definition of “sin”? What exactly do you Christians consider as “sin”? I’m not trying to be mean or anything but you guys speak of sin as if it is a seperate entity with mind and body of its own…which it’s not, right?
The definitions I get from Googles don’t really seem to fit in the way that you guys are using that word…
Thanks a lot!
Mutate and Survive
June 20, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
A good definition of sin is anything that harms relationships.
I am Lutheran and we confess every week that we “are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves.” Sin is a condition, a state of imperfection. We arrived in this state by rebelling against God, as described metaphorically in Genesis with Adam and Eve.
Luther wrote that our will is captive to sin – that every human decision will eventually lead to failure. That is why all of this “why can’t we just get along, we can do it ourselves and don’t need God” is – in our view – a flawed philosophy. Humans will always screw up, it is in our nature.
What has happened is that the idea of sin as a condition has morphed into sin as an action. So the natural conclusion is that if we don’t sin by the way we act we are gonna be OK. But that is not the way it works.
You don’t have to be a believer to see this – just look around. Are things getting better? Or just more complicated…
June 21, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I had an evangelical friend who called his mischievous little dog a “sinner”! He was right really, of course, it`s not just a joke, and shows what a load of bollocks all this theological semantics really is!!
June 24, 2009 at 11:17 pm
A sin is best described as anything that hurts a Relationshop…………………..???
A Sin is decribed as a Chosen (By Intelligent Human) wrong to hurt another, society, Or Self!
Killing, unjustifiable anger, Defaming Another, Using another as in Improper (age, Voluntary by Each; taking advantage) Sex, Work-Pay, Aussult, Theft, Etc Etc Etc. Is No Brainer! Nothing to do with “Relationship” per se.
Not many realisze that Civil laws can exceed Moral, Religeous standards of Sin: In Northern Virginia, a Person can thoretically be arrested for Spitting on the sidewalk, according to a Deputy!
June 21, 2009 at 10:39 pm |
I have been wondering about this, too, and I recently saw something that helped me understand what they mean in a comment by Andrew to one of theBEattitude’s earlier posts:
In reality sin is much deeper than just breaking rules. Sin is that creeping, sneaky darkness that we have to work to hide. Sin is the reason we have to teach kids not to steal. Sin is the reason we have to teach kids not to beat up smaller kids and take their toys.
Its true that babies are all little barbarians and it is the parent’s (and community’s) job to turn them into decent human beings; and from time to time throughout life we find ourselves responding to thoughts whose results we know, if we acted on them, would be wrong. If I understand Andrew’s comment correctly, this aspect of human cognition is what theists call “sin”.
Just above in the present thread, Paul M says “…the idea of sin as a condition has morphed into sin as an action.” I understand this to recognize that on the occasions when we act on a wrong thought, the wrong action is often called a “sin”; and understand it to mean that the dual use of “sin” both for an aspect of thought and for specific concrete (improper) actions has created a confusion that interferes with understanding of the religious concept. Well, it certainly confused me.
OK. So now that we know what they are talking about, we can observe that these bits of “creeping, sneaky darkness” result from the most primitive parts of the brain. Those parts recognize necessities such as food, shelter, reproductive opportunities, etc., and anything else which may be useful; and they propose action to acquire such things or make use of such situations. This is a fundamental function of living in the world and is essential to survival.
But, of course, these desires can come into conflict with other, more complex necessities including, most relevant to this discussion, the need for trust and cooperation among humans. These more complex matters of judgment, short and long term consequences, restraint, social processes, etc., are handled by a more recently developed part of the brain, the frontal cortex. This is the part that gives us the notion that humans are naturally good and loving.
Nobody wants to acknowledge that the selfish part is natural, too. We divide it into two parts. If you are hungry and a delicious tuna sandwich is before you, you think it would be a good thing to pick it up and eat it. Even by Christian standards this is not evil. But if that sandwich is in the break room fridge and belongs to a coworker, most of us tell ourselves to go out to the Kwik-E-Mart and buy our own lunch. In analyzing this interaction, however, many people forget that the desire to eat the sandwich is natural; they consider the thought wrongful if it occurs when the sandwich in question belongs to someone else. Thus, we are all supposedly constantly sinful because one part of our brain keeps coming up with observations and proposals without regard to the consequences, and another part of our brain has to evaluate the proposals and (probably yet another part has to make the decision to) veto those that are wrong.
This is one area where an omniscient, omnipotent, and caring god could have done a better job of explaining an observed phenomenon even when dealing with ancient people who did not have the benefit of our knowledge of biology, neurology, and psychology.
June 20, 2009 at 7:44 pm |
I disagree. Human guilt makes people think they need a savior. As a child we are taught to feel guilty when we do something bad. Belief in God takes over where our parents left off.
We don’t need a savior. We simply need to stop doing things that make us feel guilty. Or stop feeling guilty about things that don’t matter.
June 20, 2009 at 11:08 pm |
Hitler believed he was doing the right thing when he killed six million Jews. He felt no guilt.
But I assume you agree that it was not OK…
June 21, 2009 at 10:42 am
Considering he committed suicide and had his dead body burned.. I think he was feeling a bit guilty.
June 21, 2009 at 11:50 am
I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I didn’t say doing evil things are okay as long as you don’t feel guilty.
As I said, human guilt makes people think they need a savior. But Hitler sort of broke this rule considering he thought his act of genocide was the “work of the Lord”. I guess not everyone needs guilt to believe in God.
June 24, 2009 at 11:27 pm |
Beattitude, it is not “Being made to feel Guilty”. Has nothing to do with Religion.
It is the “univrsally Wrong, Harmful to self, another, society” that is Ingrained as Wrong childhood on. Sense of Guilt is Natural, not taught in Catholic circles. I’ve heard of Extreme “bible only” false preachings that this or that Group, Or Activity dooms all to Hell, which Contradicts even Bible, And Church.
June 20, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
I now better understand why some christians don’t like Freud. I think it is hard to refute these quotes but some will try.
Paul M the only ones captive to sin are those that think it is something important. Since I don’t see what you call sin as something real, I’m not captive to it.
June 21, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
Baconsbud,
So basically you’re saying:
“Atheism is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of an unaccountable world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities.”
In short, you have physical “needs”, that you don’t want someone greater than yourself telling you what to do. Therefore, you have developed a world void of a god.
It works both ways…
June 21, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
Oh boy…
Here we go again!
June 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
LOL I would say you missed it by a large amount. You seem to have this thing for making strange statements and tend to be lost. Sin isn’t real since it is always changing as society changes. What people call sins are nothing more then attempts by people to control the actions of other people.
I didn’t develop anything, I just took the evidence I have and from it I saw that if a god does exist, it doesn’t conform to anything religions claim exist.
Until you wake up and really look at your so called belief you should probably hang out with others that will clap and shout for your words. You are wasting your time with me.
June 21, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I agree with Butterfly – I wouldn`t take any notice!
June 21, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I also took the evidence I was given, but came to a conclusion there must be a God. We have both looked at the same evidence. Therefore we must go to a third party other than man to determine who’s right.
Oh wait.
You don’t have anything higher than man to go to. Therefore we are stuck at an impasse in your worldview.
Nothing is right. Nothing is wrong.
June 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm
OR
One of us has looked at the evidence the wrong way.
June 21, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
“Paul M the only ones captive to sin are those that think it is something important. Since I don’t see what you call sin as something real, I’m not captive to it.”
Well, go down the list of the 10 commandments. Didn’t kill anyone, OK good. Didn’t commit adultery, fine. Now, how about honoring your father and mother – always do that? Never stole anything? Never was envious of what someone had?
Ever hurt someone by something you said or did? I have. That is being in a state of sin. We all fall short of perfection.
You can say sin does not exist, or that it does not matter but the state of the world says otherwise.
June 20, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
the guilt comes from the knowledge that we are captive to sin.
I was captive to sin until I obtained knowledge. Now I’m free from all that and guilt is gone too. Only ignorance kept me captive.
June 21, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
Well said LeoPardus! When I eventually saw the light, I didn`t condemn the whole of the Bible as tommyrot. One of my favourite verses is John 8:32 – “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” I now feel completely free, and liberated from the enormous burden of guilt which, even as a “born-again” Christian, supposedly “washed in the blood of the Lamb”, I carried around with me all the time. If only I`d found true salvation sooner!!
June 20, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
Sigmund Freud was a very sharp man, but have no respect for religion…as it has no tolerance or respect for atheism.
June 24, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
Sigmund Freud Said Famously and definitivelly that the Smallest % group of Mental Patients visiting himm are Practising Catholics (Because they Feel, Know are Fogiven by God (John 20:23)) Feeling foregiven by God Removes the Guilt. Freud found it Worked!
One never Knows are FORGIVEN if “Confess” Directly to God; Do they Repent the Wrong? They are doing Own thing, not God’s will.
Totally False that Catholic Church does not tolerate or respect atheism. The Church knows is Lack of Appreciation, Knowledge, or Of God.
The Catholic Church Respects All, Everyone however mistaken or far-fetched, Realizing they Don’t know, or Misunderstand.
The Church teaches that Discrimation, Looking down on Another or a Protestant, “Can be a Sin”.
June 20, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
Sigmund Freud was a very sharp man, but I have no respect for religion…as it has no tolerance or respect for atheism.
June 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
So basically you’re intolerant of intolerant people…
June 21, 2009 at 5:46 am |
Freud is a perfect example of someone who could not possible accept the idea of “God”, because, in the words of famous atheist Julian Huxley, he was too afraid “God [would have] interfered with our sexual morays”.
It is not intellect that prevented Freud from logically postulating a Deity;
It was the cigars.
June 21, 2009 at 10:45 am |
or maybe he just wasnt indoctrinated, like so many others, as a child and was never led to the lies so as to drink them up.
It was his mommy.
June 21, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
So yeah…
We’re supposed to believe in a “deity” that could magically create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift, and then miraculously lift it.
Mhmm, makes perfect sense.
June 21, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
Butterfly:
There are actually some things God can’t do, this doesn’t make Him less God. For instance, since He is perfect, he cannot be imperfect; if he could that would make him imperfect and therefore he could no longer be perfect.
There are certain restrictions He has placed on Himself that cannot be altered: He can’t be tempted (James 1:13) or Lie (Hebrews 6:18, Romans, Titus…) or lift a rock so heavy…
June 21, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Ah but he can create imperfection. Doesn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? Now if you are going to say he doesn’t conform to our understanding of him then quit, trying to define him yourself.
June 21, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I’m talking about his supposed Omnipotence, not his Perfection.
If that strawman of yours was on purpose, then I’ll……well, you don’t wanna know.
So, Freeware Gospel, let me ask you a very simple Yes/No question: Do you believe that God is OMNIPOTENT?
Ergo; do you believe that he can create a rock so heavy that he can’t move and then move it?
June 21, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Butterfly, how about the third answer?
How about the reasoning where he transcends such a restricting word? We’re still trying to define something that cannot be comprehended to our own liking, our own selfish conditions. we’re putting conditions on somethings that you cannot put your finger on.
The absolute has and always will be free from the bonds of both perfection and imperfection, they just do not apply, and why should they? Its only for the minds convenience that they ever come into play. So if they just don’t apply then the conflict no longer exists now does it? ;]
I’ve definitely enjoyed this, and its stirred some thought, that the quote seems to jump out, “Can a knife cut itself?” This is the kind of thing that the mind is dealing with.
Anything that we can possibly say about the Absolute will always be a distortion of the Truth. If you want that then just look, don’t search for the answers, they’ve always been right in front of you, but you’ve all been fast asleep, you pay no heed to the mountain of evidence within your grasp. How can you possibly know the Absolute if you do not even know yourselves? You may say, “I do know myself” but what you know are only ideas that you think yourself to be, but you are so much more, wipe off that dust from the mirror. <3
June 22, 2009 at 1:34 am
Has anybody got the faintest idea what liberatedself is talking about here?
June 22, 2009 at 3:30 am
Butterfly:
Yes.
(Although your “ergo” is built upon a faulty premise, that’s like me saying, “Can you get to Kentucky? Ergo, is your uncle George Washington?”)
June 22, 2009 at 6:11 pm
@barriejohn
Ah, okay, let me try and clarify. Have you ever experienced a moment in which you look at something so vastly beautiful that you cannot explain it even to yourself. Like the first time you’ve ever laid your eyes on a sunset or the first time you’ve ever climbed to a top of a relatively large mountain and the view just captivated you so much that you cannot explain it in words. This is the kind of thing that we are dealing with. You dig?
June 23, 2009 at 2:09 am
You`re not using any of this as an argument for the existence of God, I hope!
June 23, 2009 at 3:37 am
Why argue?
To find God you just simply have to look, nothing more, don’t search, just look. <3
June 25, 2009 at 12:15 am
Butterfly, God is The Creator > The Big Bang Theory, Proven last 20 years, unquestionably. All the laws of Gravity, Mathematics, Nature, Entire Universe, with all the “Intelligence” in it, from ‘Something smaller than an Atom’.
Neat lucky streak, Without THE CREATOR???
June 24, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
Ex-Primitive, want to give examples of couple of “Lies we have been indoctrinated to (By Religion?)”? Absolute Zero lies By Catholic Church! Name ONe if disagree!
Are Many misrepresentaions by Fundies, Like “All Catholics are going to Hell” So only properly taught fundies do? is one of my Favs!
The Church teaches that only God decides every One’s fate at death. No verse, no teaching, no opinion does.
June 21, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
Neurosis. Awesome!
June 25, 2009 at 12:07 am |
Feud is Known always as having had “Issues”, Problems, often sexual. Cow allegedly Cocaine related also.
Cocaine, Drugs, Booze fill in for the Lack of Confidence in Self Seeking, instead of Knowledge of True God.
June 23, 2009 at 11:34 am |
The comments did make me curious about Freud, I know little of him, I have just read the wikipedia, but is this affirmation true?
“Jurgen von Scheidt posits that most of Freud’s psychoanalytical theory was a byproduct of his cocaine use.”
Then, well I will not like to be “freed of religion” if to have a “better chance to live a normal and wholesome life” means that I will need drugs or to desire sexually my mum… This kind of statements aren’t rational, there are just statements, not arguments… although I do believe that to challenge your believes is a needed step to maturity, I do not agree that to have believes is something “patently infantile.”
He was a pioneer in many fields, but it does not feel that he did know much about love and a “wholesome life” to be that categorical about it… but as I said, I have just read the wiki…
I do believe that you can live a wholesome life with or without believes, therefore I do not think that Religion interferes with happiness.
June 26, 2009 at 10:10 am |
Great post. Great comments. But, “Freud” is also the same guy who believed all women have “penis envy”. So, he loses some credibility with me there.. LOL
June 26, 2009 at 10:52 am |
Indeed, Samantha. The founder of Analytical Psychology Had “Issues” Sexually, Attitudinally, As Atheist he tried to feel better about with Cocaine, allegedly.
Lot better to live Posiyivelly, helping others, and Knowing true God is Simplest, most natural, most ideal.
June 26, 2009 at 10:59 am |
Well – I’m all for living positively, and helping others… but, don’t believe you have to believe in God to do so… ahhhhh… but, that’s yet another debate, eh?
June 26, 2009 at 11:49 am |
Not much of a debate, Samantha. You Act very Christian, helping, caring about others.
But only a Very Few, single digits, are Atheist in the USA, World (Usually because of their pride in Their opinions, attitudes) are Atheist.
Personal problems like Feud soon develop, as he tried to solve in sex and drugs and drinks, Typically, Because ‘we get bored of our ideas, self’. My line is there’s “No future in us alone”.
Helping others, loving to, is “Creation” of God, as well as is the Universe, everything. Obviously not accidents of Nature.
And True Religion: 2000 year old Catholic, is Not Dogma, Not don’t break these rules, forced anything. Total Opposite, Living Idealism. Culture Too: Hymns, Greatest Arts, greatest “Culture” resulting in great Calm, joy after daily Mass (2000 year old “Last Supper Feast”), etc. No negatives in Catholic ones except those invented by outsiders, in jealousy.
June 26, 2009 at 8:10 pm |
Anthony – So, Christians corner the market on being able to care, or help others? I think not. I’m sure there are many many other people belonging to non-christian religions, as well as other atheists or agnostics that would disagree.
And, so, only non-christian people have problems wih sex, drugs, drinks, or whatever? Again… I think not.
Matter of fact, there’s so much that i disagree with in your last post, but, I don’t want to offend or argue with you. I’m sure your intentions are good…
June 26, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
I didn’t wtite what I meant well, Samantha. I obviously Beagan by you Acting In very Christiamn attude, outlook. We say tiy are “acting Christian” which is a most important good. I meant to say Atheists, Agnostics, others do act as society teaches.
However, One can not go through lufe and hope for ‘satisfaction’, ‘fulfillment’ of happiness in, of oneself. Think We can be the satisfaction of our dreams, hopes? “Non-spiritually?” Spiritual Means with a or The God.
What about when things go downhill? What does one think then? What did Micheal Jackson, Marilyn Monroe, most hollywood stars do when they become ‘obsolete’ in the field?
People with Real Faith, not as a crutch, have no problem.
And all ‘religions’, faiths are far from the same! Self centered on A preacher for His income, or his pride, is not religious, but Using people, religion for his own goals.
Protestant brothers have differrent Parts of True Catholic Christ Life, Teaching as He taught. Not ‘oh, i like sex, i like….’ That’s not Christ. It’s Personal opinion.
Budhism, Islam Christianity, Sikh All teach Same basics of Helping others, not self. Help Society. Respect God/Allah/Budha/Jahweh, etc: Strengthens Us!
And The Church teaches respect for All, Everyone, as most important to God. Discrimnation is Wrong, against universal evils.
Any differences, thoughts Samanthamj?
I love everyone’s ideas, only hurt when they have hurtful wring ideas, like “Religions are evil”, “God Kills Nations”, etc.
Have a good a weekend.
June 28, 2009 at 9:53 am |
Those who think science is a ‘religion’ or a ‘belief’ might examine the history of psychology. There was a time, just a few decades, when Freudian theories were indeed considered to be overwhelmingly correct. Evidence that contradicts some of Freud’s ideas has slowly accumulated, yet psychologists have neither clung to his writings as ‘gospel’ nor rejected all of his work. We continue to respect Freud for giving us the first set of tools to address mental health problems. He’s just one of many atheists and agnostics who have devoted their lives to helping humanity, even when they face scorn, as Freud did.
As for suicide, I will certainly consider it for myself if I have a lingering terminal illness, even if it isn’t terribly painful. I’d prefer to see that nurse who has to feed and clean my irreparable body spend his or her time helping somebody who has a chance of recovery.