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.
Galdston states that there is a psychological substratum in religion, a thesis easy to accept. However, he reveals that the thinking which permitted him to arrive at this conclusion is not scientific. He really means that man is predisposed to religion. His is a rather mystical conception and not a psychological theory. He brings 'proof': '… I myself not only subscribe to the existence and to the operation of the psychologic substratum of religion, but further contend that the most crystal-clear demonstration of its being in operation is to be found in the theoretical framework and in the clinical and other achievements of modern dynamic psychiatry, the psychiatry of Freud, Jung, and Meyer'. He equates the soul and the psychological substratum of religion and says that the denial of one is tantamount to a denial of the other. He makes an excursion into what he calls an analysis of his own emotional response to technicians and craftsmen (he seems to share the attitude toward technicians which is said to have been true of the ancient Greeks) in which he decides that technicians have an 'entirely central vision'. A neat piece of argumentation then follows which states that modern science is a technique and therefore it too has central vision. He now comes to full grips with the issues of his thesis by defining psychoanalysis and reminding us of Freud's use of the phrase 'archaic inheritance' with which Jung did 'much better' in his descriptions of the collective unconscious. These statements of Galdston's are supposed to be psychologic proof of the existence of a force which is an impulsion to religion in man and is part of some élan vital to be noted prenatally and postnatally. He does not rest his case on this 'psychological hypothesis'; he adduces 'biologic' and 'clinical' proof. The 'biologic' proof is that since man is subject to powerful antipedal stresses (which need be 'culturally interpreted' for him), he stands in need of 'reconciliation between h