You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Freud's researches into the origin of religion and religious belief led to a new and deep psychological understanding of the subject. What he affirmed in this regard many years ago still stands in full. Other analysts, such as Jones, Reik and Róheim, to mention only a few, have followed in Freud's footsteps and greatly contributed to our understanding in this sphere.
What I wish to say hereunder is derived, in part, from this same approach but it also includes another one. The points I wish to deal with may be summarized as follows.
There are other aspects of religion, besides those considered by the above writers, that equally deserve the attention of psychoanalysis. Freud touched upon these, especially in “The Man Moses and the Monotheistic Religion”, when referring to the two religions, so different in nature, upon which the Jewish creed was formed. These other aspects are also connected with the problem of the “material truth” of religion, against which Freud set the “historical truth” it contains—the only one he recognizes(1).
Freud's position as regards religion is co-determined by his relationship with his father, and analysis of this relationship explains, in part, his specific approach and its evolution. Atheism, the pessimism so often accompanying it, and hostility to religion are no less fit subjects for psychoanalytic
(.) Lecture delivered before the Argentine Psych-Anal. Assoc. in November 1955.
(1) . “Der Mann Moses und die Monotheistische Religion. Gesammelte Werke. Imago Publ. Co., London 1950. Vol. XVI, pp. 236-240.
research. This topic, which might well bear the title “The Future of a Disillusion” will be dealt with, albeit briefly, in the last part of this paper.
Whosoever utters the word religion in a public address does well to bear in mind that the ideas and feelings he arouses in his hearers will be of the most varied kind. One might divide people into religious, irreligious and antireligious, although this classification is open to question since