logo

35 pages 1 hour read

Sigmund Freud

The Future of an Illusion

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1927

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapters 5-7

Chapter 5 Summary

In this section, Freud considers the nature of religious proclamations (what he calls “religious ideas”). Freud sees religion as a set of teachings that lay claim to being “assertions about facts and conditions of external (or internal) reality which tell one something one has not discovered for oneself” (25). Religious ideas, collected in religious texts or spread through sermons by priests, make assertions about the nature of the world—how it works or why it exists. However, these statements are not based upon anything observable in the surrounding world and thus rely on one’s “belief” in them to be true.

For Freud, religious teachings starkly differ from the forms of teaching that exist in secular schooling. Schools often teach pupils about facts that they cannot know for themselves, such as the location of a lake in a distant part of the world. However, one could always independently seek out factual proof for these claims, such as traveling to the lake one has learned about in geography class. In contrast, religious teachings demand to be accepted due to the fact that “they were already believed by our primal ancestors” (26). Further, many religions look down upon anyone investigating the truth of religious teachings and often outright prohibit such questioning.

Freud believes that any investigation into the truth of religion inevitably leads one to realize that the same religious teachings that claim to “be of the greatest importance to us” are also “the least well authenticated of any” (27). However, he notes that many writers and scholars have sought proof for religious ideas in the face of such doubt. Freud discusses two main ways that such individuals have argued in favor of religion. The first way is known as “credo quia absurdum,” which claims that religious ideas must be accepted as true because they are wholly “outside the jurisdiction of reason” and are often revealed to certain individuals in a “state of ecstasy” (28). Freud argues that if only one person can experience this state of ecstasy, it is not sufficient to prove the truth of religious ideas to others. Freud also describes “the philosophy of ‘as if’” (28), which argues that religious ideas must be accepted as true because they have become foundational for civilization’s existence. Freud believes that such an argument will not keep normal individuals from giving up on religion after they recognize the many flaws in religious arguments. 

Chapter 6 Summary

As religious ideas cannot be defended by reason, Freud believes that their continuing appeal to humanity has to do with its psychological dimensions. For Freud, religious ideas must be understood as “illusions” that exist to fulfill “the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind” (30). Freud believes that these wishes first arise in childhood, when one desires “protection” from one’s father in the face of one’s overwhelming sense of helplessness. As one grows into an adult, one experiences a similar sense of helplessness when confronted with the universe.

Religion provides an answer to this helplessness through the concept of God and the afterlife. By creating a “moral world-order” in which just individuals go to heaven and sinful ones go to hell (30), religion suggests that the universe is fundamentally ruled by “justice” and that humans can live free of fear by knowing that their life will extend after death. Religion thus helps individuals cope with their sense of futility by assuring them that the world is not random but instead follows the will of God, who protects all his followers.

Freud explains that illusions differ from mere factual errors about reality in that illusions are intricately connected to “human wishes.” While this view makes illusions similar to “delusions,” Freud argues that illusions are not necessarily “in contradiction with reality” (31). As illusions, Freud argues that religious ideas are fundamentally outside of rational thinking and can only be accepted or rejected as beliefs. However, just as one cannot prove religious ideas, one cannot use reason to discredit them. Freud imagines an objection to his argument: If one cannot disprove religion through reasoning, one should continue to believe in it, due to “tradition” and its role in society. Freud believes that such an argument is not sound enough, as he sees it as an attempt to excuse believing in religion when one is wholly lacking in proof.  

Chapter 7 Summary

Freud opens by saying that since religion is an illusion, one might naturally wonder whether a number of other societal rules (such as laws or gender divisions) are “illusions as well” (34). While Freud acknowledges that many of society’s institutions may be illusions, such an investigation is too wide-ranging for his current project, and he must focus on investigating what it means for religion to be an illusion.

Freud then return to his imaginary opponent introduced in Chapter 4, who offers a number of objections to Freud’s argument. The opponent claims that religion must not be critiqued in the way Freud is doing, as religious ideas form the basis of social laws and morals. If religion disappears, the opponent fears that “everyone will […] follow his asocial, egoistic instincts and seek to exercise his power (34). The opponent also believes that discrediting religion as Freud is doing is “a purposeless cruelty” (35), as religion provides many people’s lives with a sense of meaning.

Freud responds by claiming that the opponent is overestimating the power of Freud’s words. Freud believes that any “devout believer” would not be skeptical to Freud’s arguments, as such individuals’ conviction in their beliefs is too strong to be argued away. Further, Freud notes that his arguments against religion are similar to those espoused by many other writers, and that his contribution to such arguments is solely to use psychology to analyze religion. Freud also notes that by writing such arguments, he is only placing his own credibility at stake, as well as that of the entire discipline of psychoanalysis. Critics may attack psychoanalysis as being a sinful discipline that “leads to a denial of God” (36).

Freud then responds to his opponent’s claims about how religion provides a sense of fulfillment to its followers. Freud argues that religion has failed in its mission of “making […] mankind happy,” as the vast majority of individuals “are dissatisfied with civilization” and seek the destruction of society (37). He also argues that religion has often failed to make individuals behave morally, as it often tacitly endorses immoral behavior by allowing its followers numerous ways of atoning for their sins. Freud closes the chapter by arguing that the growth of scientific thinking will only lead larger numbers of individuals to realize the flaws of religion and turn away from it. Though Freud acknowledges that without religion, such individuals may develop aggressive feelings towards civilization, he believes that one should search for a replacement for religion rather than keep it in place as an institution.

Chapters 5-7 Analysis

In these chapters, Freud develops his arguments about the role that religion plays for human civilization. Freud will explain religion both as a set of teachings (Chapter 5) and as an illusion (Chapter 6). Though religion claims to offer its followers teachings about the workings of the universe, Freud notes that its teachings are offered “without producing grounds for their claim” (26). Unlike teachings one learns in school, there is no way to independently verify religion’s claims to be true. For Freud, this lack of proof, when combined with religion’s promise to fulfill “human wishes,” turns religion into an illusion.

Throughout these chapters, Freud explores various arguments that have been presented throughout history to attempt to defend religion, in spite of a lack of evidence for any of its claims. Freud notes that religion often outright prohibits any attempt “to raise the question of [religious teachings’] authentication at all” (26), with many religions proscribing harsh punishments for anyone who doubts religion’s claims. However, religion has also been defended based on an argument known as “credo quia absurdum” (28). According to this argument, as religious teachings are based upon belief, they lie outside the realm of reason, and any attempt to use reason to prove or disprove them is futile. Freud notes that such arguments often fail to convince anyone but the most devout believers. Often, religious belief is based upon a vision revealed to a single sacred individual in a state of ecstasy. Freud argues that it is impossible to accept such visions as proof when one has not personally experienced the vision.

Freud also describes a number of arguments for religion that attempt to provide reasoning for religious beliefs while acknowledging the many contradictions that exist within religious texts. In Chapter 6, Freud describes how a number of philosophers have offered revised definitions of the concept of God that are reconcilable with their belief in critical thinking and rational arguments. Such philosophers transform God into “some vague abstraction,” for instance claiming that the core of religion consists in “admit[ting] to a sense of man’s insignificance or impotence in the face of the universe” (32). In Freud’s view, such attempts to transform God fail to properly offer proof of religion, as they ignore the core of religious institutions by transforming God into “nothing more than an insubstantial shadow” (32).

In Chapter 7, Freud’s opponent argues that religion should be kept merely on the basis of its long history: “The doctrines of religion are not a subject one can quibble about like any other” (34). The opponent believes that the majority of humans will succumb to “asocial, egoistic instincts” without the prohibitions provided by religion (34). Such a view essentially concedes that Freud is correct in his argument against the truth of religion, as the opponent is arguing to keep religion based upon its role in society, rather than providing evidence for its claims.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text