Nietzsche And Nietzsche On The Rationality Of Religious Belief

After summarizing both arguments, discernibly Sigmund Freud and Paul Tillich would hold opposing views on both the function of faith and the future of faith. The disagreement would begin with the function of religion in society, displayed when Tillich writes, “The question raised by this book is whether such belief is based on insight or on misunderstanding, and the question is unambiguously that the rejection of faith is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the nature of faith” (146). Freud believes religion is man being immature, but Tillich feels differently. Tillich perceives the rejection of faith as the misunderstanding of the true nature of faith. If Tillich and Freud were to hold a debate, Tillich would most likely discuss how Freud misunderstands faith’s nature. Freud, however, would respond with a discussion about how faith is man looking for security in the world.

Freud contradicted everything I had ever learned…. Danny didn’t seem to have rejected what Freud taught” (184-185). Although Freud’s concept of man does not fit Danny’s religious views, he does not decline them.

Religion is a species-specific human universal phenomenon, complex, full of paradoxes, and found in all cultures. Social scientists and anthropologists since the late 17th century have attempted to rationally answer questions about religion, and while we can't evaluate the veracity of religion’s claims, we can attempt to understand its functions.

Freud mainly focuses on human nature and questions the desire, ideas ,and beliefs that shape a human, he then further analyses them. We see in his literature, Civilization and its Disconnect, that he questions religion and the belief in God. He himself does not believe in God, but wants to know why many people follow and trust something that they cannot see. He also questions the concept of human relationships. Knowing that a two person relationship and interaction is inevitable and that it is a part of life, but he does not know if a third relationship, and further on, is necessary. Regardless, human relationships are a part of society, and one of causes of civilizations, which Freud defines as “the whole some of achievement and the regulations which distinguish our lives” (Freud). With one of the achievements

Kierkegaard believes that true faith can only be attained through a double movement of giving up rationality or logic, while at the same time believing one can understand logically. In “Fear and Trembling” Kierkegaard relates true faith to the Knight of infinite resignation and the Knight of faith; in this paper, I will examine this claim and show why Kierkegaard’s analogy is an excellent metaphor for the double movement which is required in one’s quest to attain faith and why.

argued from various perspectives or disciplines that man is a by nature a religious being. Karl

Starting with Kierkegaard, it is best to understand that he has a deep fulfillment to God and that he feels is the absolute. This absolute is to live in the realm of a paradox and that paradox is proving the existence of God and experiencing it for yourself. To understand this is to go through the different stages, of aesthetic, moral and religious. The aesthetic is all about the individual and focuses on oneself as an individual. The moral is having to be antagonistic towards yourself in

Freud examined much of psychoanalysis and trends that were affected by it. Freud disagreed with religion to full extent. He believed that there needed to different tasks accomplished by the individuals that made up the society but in difference will lead to capitalism and the destruction of the social structure.

In his book Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud utilizes his method of psychoanalysis on religion by comparing the relationship between human and religion to that of a child and his parents. Freud effectively demonstrates that religion is a product of the human mind. After exposing religion as a an illusion, Freud concludes that humanity will be better off when it has forgone religion. This paper will argue that Freud's assertion that religion is an illusion is correct because of it's blatantly traceable evolution through the history of the human civilization and psyche.

In Sigmund Freud’s, The Future of an Illusion, he studies religious foundations and the influence of religion on civilization and social principles. As he explores the psychological depths relating to religion, he also portrays a scientific and rational civilization. In turn, he reveals his hope for an ideal world where humans surpass their feelings of helplessness and insignificance to live in an improved civilization based on reason and the increase of knowledge. Through his analysis and ideas, Freud is able to incite feelings of doubt surrounding religious beliefs and their validity.

They both see the values of society as being a result of and necessary for civilization, rather than natural phenomena. Both theorists see guilt as stemming from a restriction of humanity’s natural urges, Nietzsche believing that it was a tool used by the priests to control the masses. Freud on the other hand thought it developed from a repression of humanity’s aggression towards one another. Equally, Freud and Nietzsche show a similar disdain for religion, the former seeing it as a delusional, infantile way to limit the pain and suffering that existence brings with it and the latter, due to what he sees as the transvaluation of values that the Judeo-Christian religions have brought about and the perceived cultural inaction that stems from this. As well as this, Nietzsche disliked the apparent inherited debt that comes with Christianity and the obligated guilt from Christ’s

Freud in his writing suggests that religion is an “illusion.” Not your typical deception of something, rather misapprehension of religion. Additionally, Freud provides brand new eyes to look at religion and its construct of civilization. He further provides evidence of his own, as well as suggesting a psychoanalytical approach to religion.

By studying the ideas of other psychologists and philosophers to support his own ideas, Freud was able to take the parts he agreed with and disprove the parts he did not agree with. He explores the ideas of Aristotle, Hildebrandt and Strumpell to name just a few. He agreed strongly with Aristotle’s belief that dreams are not divine in

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

He believes that knowledge has the ability to not take itself too seriously. Nietzsche is an advocate for uniting knowledge and play. He supposes that we create our values ourselves and do not discover them from nature or reason, as supposed by Plato. However, both philosophers believe that knowing your own ignorance and having a willingness to accept the fact that we are sometimes wrong and at fault is a vital step in creating the morals and values that we hold.