THEME 1A– SIGMEUND FREUD (RELIGIOUS BELIEF AS A PRODUCT OF THE HUMAN MIND)
FREUD (A01)
Explain Freud’s view of Religious Belief [30]
Freud developed the idea of religious belief as a product of the human mind in the 20th century and
viewed religion as a collective neurosis. He also viewed religious belief as resulting out of repression
of an unconscious guilt and out of wish fulfilment or reaction to helplessness
Freud first viewed religion as a collective neurosis caused by the unconscious mind, noting that those
who suffered from an obsessional neurosis involving compulsive repeated actions showed similar
patterns to religious believers. He pointed towards the example of religious ritual of saying the
rosary to support this, interpreting the repeated action as an unconscious protective measure
against instinctual impulses. He also observed other neurotic symptoms present in religious belief
such as displacement, where religious believers will displace an action that God disapproves of onto
prayer or confession. He thus argued that neurosis was a ‘pathological formation of a religion’ and
saw religion as a collective neurosis as religious believers behaved similarly to obsessional neurosis
patients.
Building on this, Freud also viewed religion as resulting from repressed trauma in the unconscious
mind from early human history, linking religion to the primality and behaviour of apes in his work
Totem and Taboo in 1913. Freud’s theory had basis in Darwin’s conjecture that human beings
originally lived in hordes, and he argued the primal horde is where repressed trauma originated.
Freud supported this through his observation of the system of totenism, which was when a
slaughtered alpha male in a horde caused the formation of a totem that symbolised the inherited
sense of guilt of killing the father. From this, he maintained that this guilt was passed down through
generations and that religious belief formed to substitute for this inherited guilt. For example, Freud
viewed the Christian ritual of Holy Communion as Christ replacing the totem of the father figure and
thus saw religion as a neurosis caused by inherited trauma and guilt.
Freud expanded on this and argued religious belief operated to satisfy a neurosis caused by the
Oedipus Complex, which is the idea that young boys are sexually attracted to their mothers and
repress their feelings out of fear of the father. Freud believed the sexual drive or libido was the most
basic instinct that caused psychological problems and he viewed the repression of this unresolved
Oedipus complex as causing a need for religious belief to satisfy neurosis, stating that “the roots for
,the need for religion are in the parental complex”. The desire to eliminate the father likewise led to
a similar repressed guilt as the primal horde and subsequently caused religious belief.
In his work The Future of an Illusion (1927), Freud also outlined his idea that religion is an illusion
based on wish fulfilment of the desires of the superego, proposing that the origin of religion lies in
our wishes such as the desire to escape death. This was heavily influenced by Feuerbach’s belief that
‘Religion is the dream of the human mind’. Freud pointed towards the attributes of God to support
this and interpreted them as an expression of wish fulfilment, arguing that the religious belief in an
eternal, omnipotent and benevolent that promises an afterlife in heaven fulfils our wishes to escape
death. Thus, Freud viewed religion as a product of the human mind based on wish fullfilment
Finally, Freud viewed religious belief as a reaction against the helplessness humans face in the forces
of nature, allowing humans to transform natural forces into Gods that can be worshipped and
controlled. Freud viewed religious belief as providing a sense of power when humans feel helpless
and expanded on this by observing internal human struggle against our basic instinct of aggression,
arguing religion resolves this by teaching to love one’s enemies and limit violence
In conclusion, Freud viewed Religion as a neurotic illness resulting out of factors such as wish
fulfilment, helplessness, or repressed guilt and trauma from the primal horde and Oedipus complex.
,Part B – Freud
The adequacy of Freud’s explanation of religious belief [30]
(‘Freud’s explanations of religious belief are convincing’ Examine this view)
Freud developed the idea of religious belief as a product of the human mind in the 20 th century and
viewed religion as a collective neurosis resulting out of out of wish fulfilment or repression of an
unconscious guilt. The extent to which his claims are adequate is debateable, however.
Initially one might argue Freud’s explanations of religious belief are adequate because his claims
were experience driven and based on empirical evidence from clinical observation. Freud believed
the mind could be rationally explained through scientific methods and he pointed towards case
studies such as Daniel Shreber as supportive evidence for his ideas surrounding religion as a
redirection of guilt complexes. Schreber was a highly respected judge that suffered from a religious
neurosis where God penetrated his body and transformed him into a woman and Freud argued that
this was evidence of a redirection of a guilt complex and that Schreber’s repression of his
homosexual desires re-emerged and caused his religious neurosis. Thus through clinical observation
and the supportive evidence from case studies Freud’s claims can be considered adequate.
It could also be argued that Freud’s explanations of religious belief are convincing because of its
basis in Darwin’s evolutionary theory and the idea that our instinctive desires are derived from
evolution. Freud’s view that religion resulted from repressed guilt inherited from the primal horde +
system of totenism (Totem and Taboo 1913) for example saw support from Darwin’s conjecture that
all behaviour is the result of instinct produced by natural selection to facilitate survival and in basing
his explanations of religious belief from Darwin’s theories, Freud’s arguments can be considered
more convincing.
However, one might challenge this view and argue that Freud’s explanations of religious belief are
unconvincing because of their lack of anthropological evidence. For example, Darwin’s theory of the
primitive horde which formed the basis of Freud’s primal horde theory was just speculation and had
no clear evidence, being highly unlikely humans exclusively lived in hordes. Additionally, there was
no evidence societies had totems that they worshiped which undermines Freud’s use of the system
of totemism as evidence for his claims. Freud’s idea that repressed guilt from the primal horde can
be transmitted also lacks evidence as it is based on the Lamarckian theory of ‘inheritance acquired
characteristics’ which failed to be proved despite experiments to test his theory. Thus Freud’s
, arguments are unconvincing as recent understandings of DNA and genetics have disputed the
evidence for his claims.
Furthermore, one might also challenge Freud’s view that religious belief is a result of repressed
sexual desires in the Oedipus complex as it has no firm psychological evidence. The anthropologist
Malinowski demonstrated that beliefs vary from different cultures and his study of the Trobriand
race in his work Sex and Repression in Savage Society 1927 (which found no evidence of the Oedipus
complex despite the presence of religion in the culture undermined Freud’s claims of the Oedipus
complex being universal. Malinowski’s observation that Trobriand children were disciplined by
parental uncles also undermines Freud’s idea that religion resulted out of sexual rivalry with the
father, suggesting sex has nothing to do with religion. Therefore, it could be argued that Freud is
guilty of generalising his theory of the Oedipus complex as it was only based on five main case
studies, therefore making his claims unconvincing.
Finally, it can be argued that Freud’s explanations of religious belief are inadequate because the
evidence basis for his claims are too narrow as he only focused on religions such as Judaism and
Christianity which have male God figures to support his view that the father figure developed into
God (failing to account for religions with female deities such as the Egyptian Isis cult or ones which
have no God such as Buddhism). Freud’s view that religion could be explained through scientific
methods is also weakened by this narrow evidence basis as his theories become too generalised to
the point they cannot be falsified, with the critic Adolf Grunbaum claiming Freud’s theories evaded
any kind of empirical testing. Under Karl Popper’s falsification principle, which maintained that every
genuine scientific theory must be testable and falsifiable at least in principle, Freud’s explanations
and supportive evidence can therefore be viewed as not scientific and arguably less convincing.
In conclusion, Freud’s explanations of religious belief are more unconvincing despite having some
support from clinical observation as they lack anthropological evidence and firm psychological
evidence and have a narrow evidence basis.
