The Future of an Illusion

The chapter opens with a series of objections from Freud’s imaginary opponent, who points out what appear to be a number of contradictions in Freud’s thinking. The opponent believes that Freud’s argument is based on the idea “that the believer can be turned into an unbeliever” (46), while Freud also asserts that believers are unable to be swayed by rational arguments against religion. The opponent also claims that Freud presents two opposing views of human nature. At the same time that Freud presents humans as ruled by animalistic urges, he also argues that humans are capable of embracing a rationalistic view of the universe. The opponent finally brings up “the French Revolution and Robespierre” as an example of a time when humans attempted to relinquish religion that resulted in chaos (46).

Freud counters that he is not attempting to reach devout religious believers, who he agrees are “bound to the teachings of religion by certain ties of affection” and not likely to turn away from religion (47). However, Freud believes there is a large number of religious followers who only follow because they feel “intimidated by the threats of religion” and are likely to give up on religion as scientific thinking spreads through society (47). Freud believes that it is crucial to provide these people with other reasons for supporting society and civilization aside from religious ones, as they will otherwise turn hostile towards society.

Freud then provides an explanation for his views on human nature. Freud believes that humans currently struggle to repress their urges and require the institution of religion to help keep them from following through on their instinctual desires. However, Freud does not believe that humanity inherently behaves this way; rather, he thinks humanity could learn to embrace rational thinking through a proper education. Freud argues that “religious education” prevents individuals from developing their intellectual capabilities to their fullest potential. By forcing religious ideas onto children at an early age, we take away their ability to critically interrogate religion. Freud imagines that one could replace religious education with an “education to reality” (49), which will help individuals acknowledge and deal with their utter “helplessness” and “insignificance” in the universe. 

The chapter opens with a last set of objections from Freud’s opponent, who now takes issue with what he perceives as naïve idealism in Freud’s argument. The opponent sums up Freud’s argument with sarcasm: “That sounds splendid! A race of men who have renounced all illusions and have thus become capable of making their existence on this earth tolerable!” (51).

The opponent believes that such a societal transition is unlikely to happen. Further, he argues that it would only be possible if one were to replace religion “by means of another system of doctrines” (51)—such as scientific thinking­—which would only reproduce the problems with religious institutions. The opponent believes it is impossible to educate individuals in society without relying on some form of indoctrination that imposes moral values from a very young age. As religion has a centuries-old history and is proven to help people with living their lives, the opponent believes religion should be kept as an institution.

Freud responds by explaining that he agrees with his opponent about “how difficult it is to avoid illusions” and concedes that he may be attempting to replace one form of illusion with another (53). However, Freud contends that the difference is that scientific thinking can acknowledge its errors and is constantly seeking to improve the arguments in support of it. In contrast, religious thinking insists that it is completely free of errors and punishes anyone who dares to question it.

Freud ends by arguing that it is only inevitable for scientific thinking to overtake religious ideas: “The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest till it has gained a hearing” (53). Freud contends that while both science and religion promise a “state of bliss,” religion promises this is immediately achievable in the afterlife, while scientific thinking promises to achieve such a state on Earth, albeit years in the future “for a new generation of men” (54). Freud finally argues that science cannot be considered an illusion, as its methods allow one to obtain testable knowledge about the nature of “the reality of the world” (55).