"No God"- A Wish Fulfillment?

Joanne McNeill, Northern Advocate, March 15, 2011

Joanne bewails the rising crescendo of earth’s dilemmas (earthquakes, civil unrest, nuclear meltdown, economic global collapse, starving people) and (by her own reluctant admission),sounds like a proper Jeremiah. The next writer Nickie Muir- (March  16, 2011) similarly speaks of the end of the world, crazy weather, earthquakes, and berates “doomsday Christian fundamentalists”? What is common to both is their sense of uncertainty in the world (with which I fully accord) and their mutual disdain for anything that smacks of Christianity (with which I do not agree).

Joanne said, “It’s no good blaming God either. Gods were invented by humans who can’t bear the idea of facing the unknown alone.”

It was Sigmund (born- Sigismund) Freud (1856-1939) the father of Psychoanalysis who popularised the idea of God as a “wish fulfilment”.

Eduard von Hartmann said nearly a century ago: “it is perfectly true that nothing exists merely because we wish it, but it is not true that something cannot exist if we wish it.”

Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and senior research fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford says: “Freud's atheistic view of the origin of religion comes prior to his study of religion; it is not its consequence.”

In his brilliant allegorical tale “The Pilgrims Regress”, C.S. Lewis tackles this widely accepted cliché. Madam Reason had just rescued John from the Giant through a series of riddles* and now he questions her on the meaning of the second one:

“‘It has two meanings,’ said she, ‘and in the first the bridge signifies Reasoning. The Spirit of the Age wishes to allow argument and not to allow argument.’‘How is that?’‘You heard what they said. If anyone argues with them they say that he is rationalising his own desires, and therefore need not be answered. But if anyone listens to them they will then argue themselves to show that their own doctrines are true.’‘I see. And what is the cure for this?’‘You must ask them whether any reasoning is valid or not. If they say no, then their own doctrines, being reached by reasoning, fall to the ground. If they say yes, then they will have to examine your arguments and refute them on their merits: for if some reasoning is valid, for all they know, your bit of reasoning may be one of the valid bits.’‘I see,’ said John. ‘But what was the second interpretation?’
‘In the second,’ said Reason, ‘the bridge signifies the giant’s own favourite doctrine of the wish-fulfilment dream. For this also he wishes to use and not to use.’‘I don’t see how he wishes not to use it.’‘Does he not keep on telling people that the Landlord is a wish fulfilment dream?’‘Yes; surely that is true- the only true thing he did say.’‘Now think. Is it really true that the giant and Sigismund, and the people in Eschropolis, and Mr Halfways, are going about filled with a longing that there should be a Landlord, and cards of rules , and a mountain land beyond the brook, with a possibility of a black hole?’”

Then John stood... to think. And…then…he began to laugh…
‘You had better hear the rest of the argument,’ she said at last. ‘It may not be such a laughing matter as you suppose.’…‘You see now the direction in which the giant does not want the wish-fulfilment theory used?’‘I’m not sure that I do,’ said John.
“Don’t you see what follows if you adopt his own rules?’‘No,’ said John, very loudly: for a terrible apprehension was stealing over him.
‘But you must see,’ said Reason, ‘that for him and all his subjects disbelief in the Landlord is a wish-fulfilment dream.’

---------------------------------------------------------------------

*“Now hear my second riddle. There was a certain man who was going to his own house and his enemy went with him. And his house was beyond a river too swift to swim and too deep to wade. And he could go no faster than his enemy. While he was on his journey his wife sent to him and said, You know that there is only one bridge across the river: tell me, shall I destroy it that the enemy may not cross, or shall I leave it standing that you may cross? What should this man do?”

In his Phd thesis "Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis"  Steven Jon James Lovell (2003) writes:

The general outline of a Freudian critique of religious belief is well known. It was certainly known to C.S. Lewis. Moreover, a broadly Freudian critique seems, in the minds of many, to be a genuine obstacle and objection to accepting a religious worldview. This fact is remarkable in itself since Freudian psychology holds little weight among contemporary academics.

 In the other meaning of the riddle about the bridge, “the bridge symbolises Reasoning.

The Spirit of the Age wishes to allow argument and not to allow argument” .
If Freudian psychology is to be reasonable, it must be possible to reason without falling
prey to a Freudian genetic argument. But if this is possible, then we will have to
examine someone’s reasoning before we dismiss it with such an argument. To put it
another way, the question we must ask is whether rational argument can be given a
hearing. It seems that Lewis is right in thinking that Freudian psychology wants it both
ways. The Freudian offers what he takes to be rational arguments against theistic
belief, but then exactly parallel arguments can be offered against his own position, and
indeed against Freudian psychology in general. But these arguments either establish or
fail to establish their conclusions. If they fail, they fail. But if they succeed, they still
fail. Why? Because they succeed not only in undermining the rationality of the
opponent’s position, but also in undermining the rationality of their own.

Alternatively, if the Freudian can create for themselves a position that cannot be undermined by a Freudian critique, then there seems no reason why other positions might not be similarly immune. What does this immunity consist in? Simply this: that the Freudian arguments are declared worthless, at least as an attempt to settle whether belief (or disbelief) in a given proposition is rationally acceptable. For these reasons, C.S. Lewis draws what I take to be the right conclusion.[Y]ou must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. ...[Y]ou can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning – never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.  

Moral Relativism

In Joanne McNeill’s article, (April 5^th), she speaks of “University philosophy lectures…” and agreeing with “the existentialist view that we’re making up reality as we go along…”

When others believe the same things, it becomes a community consciousness adding impetus and credibility by sheer weight of numbers to confirm they are “on track”, this “orthodoxy” (serving as answers to the existential questions thrown up by life) - forms a culture or worldview. We have then a phenomena we know as " the tide of opinion".

Humanity has utmost “faith” in a native ability to discern truth.

Philosophers develop their views; teach them to prospective intellectual leaders of society, who in turn, become the politicians, film-makers, bankers, editors, lawmakers, writers, teachers, artists and others leading the direction of culture. Through their influence these views filter down to street level and become stitched into the fabric of the dominant thought patterns and culture of the day.

Holocaust survivor and Psychoanalyst Viktor Frankl said

 " I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”

 By the time a view is almost universally held at street level, few are questioning whether or not it is true- whether it corresponds to reality. A fundamental change in society has occurred. It is now an authority in its own right and is beyond question, and woe betide anyone who expresses doubts as to its validity or basis in truth.

A  cogent example of this has been eloquently portrayed in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No intelligence allowed". Another example is how in Evangelical circles and the secular population at large is the unquestioned acceptance of libertarian free-will.

The changes may be natural progression from certain philosophies gaining a wide following- others- the result of deliberate social engineering. Is tobacco smoking still socially acceptable?

The view that “we make up our own reality as we go along” seems laughable to commonsense citizen Joe - but without realizing it we are already compromised. The indoctrination is complete. Ever heard someone say “What’s true for you- is not necessarily true for me”?

Relativism and its co-dependant -moral relativism is now endemic to our society. To appreciate the wrongheadedness of relativism there must be a concerted effort to show the exclusive nature of truth, and that the idea of relativism is born out of multiculturalism and the pluralization of societies where tolerance has been objectified to the point of being a social "idol".

“Many have such an opinion of their own capacity as to think that that cannot be proved which they cannot believe; by wisdom they knew not Christ.” -Mathew Henry (1662 –1714)