SURNAME: MADZORE

NAME: MELODY

REG NUMBER: R300DT

SUBJECT: PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION

LECTURER: REV MUNYENGWA

DUE DATE: 28 SEPTEMBER 2017

Question: Compare and Contrast the views of Sigmund

Freud and Carl Jung in relation to Psychology of
Religion
In its most basic sense, the field of the psychology of religion is composed of a variety of studies
utilizing a broad range of theoretical frameworks to interpret the psychological meaning and patterns
of collective and individual religious contents, ideation, and practice. The task of psychology of
religion is to study humans’ experiences of a reality that can be defined as spiritual, religious or
paranormal, for instance, mystical experiences, experiences of God’s guidance, healing, visions,
possession and conversion. Psychologists of religion study how these experiences are manifested,
how they arise and what purpose they serve for individuals and group. Psychology of
religion attempts to accurately describe the details, origins, and uses of religious beliefs and
behaviors. However, while other approaches to religion are interested in religion as a social
phenomenon, the primary focus of the psychological approach to religion is the way in which
religion operates in the mind of the individual.

The major figure in this approach is Sigmund Freud, who followed Insight patterns in mapping
religion as a kind of neurosis, a primitive deeply unconscious impulse reflecting humans’ buried
fears and anxieties. Religion, Freud believed, was an expression of underlying psychopathy and
distress. He believed that religion was a great hindrance to society, and so set out to prove that it is
merely a product of the mind, an illusion. He offered both a psychological and a historical
explanation of the origins of religion. Freud’s historical explanation of religion is set out in his Totem
and Taboo. There he imagines a father of a primal horde whose sons envy his access to the tribe’s
women, and so overwhelm and kill him. Even after their rebellion, the sons cannot fulfill their desire
to emulate their father, due to competition between them. Religion arose out of the frustration and
guilt that they felt.

Freud’s psychological explanation of religion builds on the ideas of Ludwig Feuerbach. Feuerbach
developed the idea that God is projection of the unconscious mind; Freud added to this a
psychological foundation. For Freud, as for Feuerbach, religion is wish-fulfillment. Freud adds the
explanation that the adoption of religion is a reversion to childish patterns of thought in response to
feelings of helplessness and guilt. We feel a need for security and forgiveness, and so invent a source
of security and forgiveness: God. Thus, he regarded God as an illusion, based on the infantile need
for a powerful father figure.

Another important thinker, Carl Jung, had been a disciple of Freud's but took a sharply different
direction, arguing that religious experience could play a positive role in human psychological health.
Religion in Jung’s view was a necessary part of the individuation process, and offered a method of
communication between humans. This was based upon the idea that the ideals and symbols present in
many of the different religions all translate into the same meanings. Jung, who was a son of a Swiss
Reformed pastor, used his Christian background throughout his career to illuminate the psychological
roots of all religions. Jung believed religion was a profound, psychological response to the unknown-
both the inner self and the outer worlds.

Jung differentiates between religion and spirituality. He understood our spiritual needs as, ‘as real as
hunger and the fear of death’ (Jung, 1928, Coll. Wks, para. 403) – as basic, as profound, as essential
as these other deep guides, or archetypal patterns, which govern how we try to live. Jung came
increasingly to think that the healthiest spiritual aim, that is, the one of most benefit to the individual,
is that of individuation – of trying to become more and more fully and truly who we essentially are.
This becoming conscious of more and more of our unconscious motivations, fears and longings, is a
lifelong process and can be followed along many different paths, two of which are, Jung thought,
analysis and religion

Jung argued that religious experience could play a positive role in human psychological health. He
established a school of psychology which emphasizes the human quest for wholeness (which he
defined as the integration of conscious and unconscious components of the psyche) through a process
called individuation. Through studying folklore, world mythologies, and the dreams of his patients,
Jung identified these components of the psyche as expressions of instinctual patterns. The role of the
psychoanalyst in the Jungian approach is to assist the analysand from being overwhelmed by
unconscious material or being cut off from the meaning offered by these suprapersonal forces.
Jungian analysts typically believe that the psyche is the source of healing and the drive toward
individuation.

Both Carl Jung and Freud believed in the unconscious and its important role in our behaviour and in
explaining the meaning of our dreams in terms of self and desires. Freud and Jung both believed in
the positive aspects of religion within society at some point in time, but Freud claimed that it was
only beneficial up until the point where we evolved from our primal, basic societies. Both Carl Jung
and Freud based their theories of religion around the idea that we have different sections of our
psyche and that we all have more primitive instincts (id) and also higher faculties (ego, superego) and
they both believed that religion has been used to help people deal with certain issues.
In as much as Freud and Jung had the same thought on some aspects of religion, the different views
on religion outweighed the similarities. When it came to religion, Freud believed that two main
thought processes led to religion. The thought process was called wishful thinking and it means just
like it sounds; it is when someone believes something solely because they want to and not because
they have evidence for it. Second of all, he believed that people had a hidden, or subconscious, desire
for a father figure. Because people get depressed and lonely, they want to put faith in a father figure,
in this case, God, to reconcile with their depressions, even though it is unjustified and may be false.

Freud claimed that religion was an illusion, meaning that it could not be proven or disproven.
However, illusions can also hold characteristics such as improbable or likely. In this anti-religion
theory, religion is improbable but it cannot be fully disproven. Carl Jung however, had an opposing
belief in theology. Similar to Freud, Carl Jung thought people believed in God because of a thought
process, except he believed it was something that shouldn’t be discouraged or outlawed, but
supported. In this theory, people derive their identity from other people and artifacts, including
religion. People will gain a sense and unity with the world and, at the same time, express it in real
terms and symbolic, religious terms

Jung placed great emphasis on a process called individuation, the process of having a profound,
sudden understanding of one’s self. This, he believed, was at the core of all religions. To live a
fulfilled life, one must have this essential, spiritual experience in order to reduce the insecurities and
doubts they may have. Through religion, this possibility opens up and leads to the unconscious
becoming the conscious, according to Jung. In conclusion, Jung was in advocacy for religious
tolerance and spiritual awakenings; the only drawback comes from dogma, which may interrupt this
process and deny the spiritual awakening to occur.

Sigmund Freud recognized only the personal unconscious, to him ‘fantasies and symbols’ were the
means whereby the individual seeks to avoid ‘reality’, whereas Jung also spoke of collective
unconscious. Because of this, Jung was able to draw upon a vast range of mythological and religious
symbolism across the world. Carl Jung saw the ‘fantasies and symbols’ as ‘symbols of
transformation.’ Through symbols we gain knowledge of realities which are in themselves
unknowable, realities which cannot be comprehended except through symbols – Symbols and myths
name the deep patterns in the unconscious, the archetypes.
Freud viewed the present as a direct and unavoidable consequence of the past, one which humanity
was compelled to repeat, ‘as an ever new repetition of the subdued’ (Scharfenberg, 1988, p. 121). By
basing his criticism of religion on a direct and deterministic model of history, Freud limited the
individual's potential to an end-state characterized by the resolution of neurosis but not necessarily
marked by psychological maturity.

Jung invented the idea of and believed in archetypes, mental facilities which 'create' images of certain
things. He thought that we are born with an 'archetype' of God, an image which we are all
predisposed to having. He provides evidence for this by referring to the fact that although there are
thousands of religions in existence, they all share common core ideas: strong infallible figures, rules
etc. This suggests that we are either born with, or quickly pick up from others, images or archetypes
(note: this is both a noun and a verb) of these things

Jung's analytical psychology embraces a religious point of view in the sense that both the theologian
and the analytical psychologist acknowledge the potential for experiencing the mysterium
tremendum (mystery that repels) as a motivating force in the psyche of every individual. What
intrigued Jung about religion was how its essence and manifestation across cultures was an apparent
reflection of an interior psychic entity: the archetype of the Self. Freud, on the other hand, pointed
vigorously to religion as evidence of pathology. He too adopted a micro/macro perspective where
religion, as a sociological phenomenon, functioned in metaphor to an individual's neurosis. For
Freud, the essence of the religious experience was a neurotic symptom. For Jung, the motivation for
religious experience and behavior pointed to either evidence of the divine or, more likely, a
psychological component within all of us, the Self, capable of great insight and wisdom

In Conclusion, when looking at Freud and Jung, it is important to put the differences between them in
the context of their personalities and also in the cultural time period of which they lived and worked.
For Freud religion was an obsessional neurosis. He believed that psychology would eventually
succeed in explaining religion away in much the same way as a neurosis can be dispelled and the
patient cured. By sharp contrast, Jung assumed that religion is an essential activity of human beings.
The absence of religion was the chief cause of adult psychological disorders. Psychology, instead of
seeking to explaln religion away, must attempt to explain how man’s nature reacts to situations
normally described as religious. The human psyche is ‘natively religious’
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jung, C. G. (1977). Jung speaking: Interviews and encounters. Eds. William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull.
Princeton: Princeton University Press .

Lindorff, D. (1995). Psyche, Matter and Synchronicity: A collaboration between C.G. Jung and Wolfgang
Pauli. J. Anal. Psychol., 40(4):571-586.

Scharfenberg, Joachim. (1988). Sigmund Freud and his critique of religion. Philadelphia:
Fortress. http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Analytical_psychology/Jung-Freud-Religion-
Numinous-versus-Neurosis.htm accessed 26/09/17

http://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-trreligionanscripts-and-maps/
psychology-psychology- accessed 20/09/17

http://www.idesam.umu.se/english/about/subjects/religion/psychology-of-religion/ accessed 20/09/17

http://guides.nyu.edu/c.php?g=1848188276742&p= accessed 20/09/17

https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Difference-Between-Carl-Jungs-and-Sigmund-Freuds-
Views-on-Religion accessed 20/09/17