Psychoanalytic Neutrality Toward Religious Experience

CAN A RELIGIOUS PERSON CONSISTENTLY EMBRACE BOTH SCIENCE AND psychoanalysis? Can a scientist consistently embrace both religion and psychoanalysis? Can a psychoanalyst consistently embrace both religion and science? Can each maintain his own identity vis-à-vis the other, without at the same time losing his integrity? This question is of particular importance for practicing psychoanalysts because it applies to psychoanalytic theory, treatment, and technique. In this domain the following questions arise: The theoretical question, how do psychoanalysts understand the analysand's religious discourse and effort? The therapeutic question, given the psychoanalytic formulation, is any modification of the analysand's religious experience and beliefs called for, and, if so, how do psychoanalysts understand what should be aimed at? The technical question, how would psychoanalysts maintain their neutrality vis-à-vis the religious analysand given their own religious makeup and their self-selected psychoanalytic theory of religion and religious experience?

In our Western liberal society that maintains the separation between church and state, most discussions of religious creed are private. The institutional separation between church and state underscores the indifference of the political organ to the parochial one. But the insistence on privacy of religious matters tells us more: it reflects the notion that these matters are precious to one's self; their critical discussion is a sensitive and risky endeavor. Yet the court of reason is public, and to refrain from openly discussing religious matters may unnecessarily deprive us of the opportunity to clarify and refine our sentiments and beliefs.