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.
I would like to thank the panelists for offering a stimulating and thoughtful discussion of the relation between psychoanalysis and religion. The panelists provided gripping stories, examples, and ideas about how religion affects their lives and clinical work and, in spite of some differences that crop up, they share a voice that is searching and respectful of one another. In particular, I would like to note my appreciation for the honest expression of their own personal struggles, including acknowledgment of problematic aspects of religion.
As the designated atheist, it might be expected that I would position myself as critical of those panelists who are religious. This is not the case, though, for two reasons: 1) I wish to affirm the importance of tolerance: I have genuine respect for people who believe in religion, especially those who are willing to reflect upon and question their own views; and 2) I am really a weak atheist, that is, an agnostic who is quite skeptical that such a being or force as God exists. To be a strong atheist, one would have to hold the belief that God does not exist. I am uncertain about the existence of God and, perhaps more controversially, dubious about whether God needs to be invoked in order to value the mystery and splendor of the world and to embrace the challenge of living a good human life. In positive terms, I would characterize my view as Darwinian, although this raises some complicated issues and I will need to briefly qualify what I mean by this. What appeals to be about Darwinism is its radical appreciation of contingency and its parsimony: Nature is miraculous and constantly evolving but not mediated by any extrinsic power. I am inclined to agree with Daniel Dennett (2006) who argues in