Sigmund Freud vs. Carl Jung

ThatOwlWoman said:
I agree to a small extent. There is religion/gods, and then there is spirituality which I define as a non-observable/non-measurable sense of connection of self to all that there is. I don't claim to know if there is a god or gods, nor do I know if there is some sort of existence after our meat-space forms die. I suspect that our innate belief in gods has to do with our subconscious memories of being an infant. Our parents ARE like gods when we are tiny and helpless. Then we grow up and realize that they're just people after all, and the subconscious disappointment sends us in search of a replacement.

This is all very Jungian and Freudian, eh?
Click to expand...
There is also the need to feel that we are not mortal, that when we die isn’t the end and there is a reward for being good humans.
 
Humans no doubt first worshiped nature


The “gods” who made the stream run and the berries grow


Mans mind was wired by needing food and water along with shelter needed to feel respect for nature to survive



Then it evolved


Man moved away from nature

Developed systems to grow food at need


Developed systems to deliver water at need


Man then began to worship themselves


So god became a human form


If religion keeps changing


Than how is it’s views the actual and all time truth?


Because it never was
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Now we're teetering on the edge of the very similar discussion that starts with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

The fact is that without guns far less ppl would be being killed. Without religion the same is true. We can also point out the downsides of not having guns or not having religion.
Click to expand...
I can't get away from Moses and Monotheism and Freud's claim that Moses was killed by the jews for preaching a kinder, gentler god than Yahweh, the exact same thing gnostics were teaching at that time. Knowledgeable jews were tired of 100s of years of war. The less militant the god, the better chance we have at avoiding war. Freud took more risks than Jung and that's why Freud is still relevant as a philosopher.
 
evince said:
Humans no doubt first worshiped nature


The “gods” who made the stream run and the berries grow


Mans mind was wired by needing food and water along with shelter needed to feel respect for nature to survive



Then it evolved


Man moved away from nature

Developed systems to grow food at need


Developed systems to deliver water at need


Man then began to worship themselves


So god became a human form


If religion keeps changing


Than how is it’s views the actual and all time truth?


Because it never was
Click to expand...

All human institutions change.

The physics of 1900 had to radically change to accommodate new theories of quantum physics and relativity.

In the year 2100, our physics might look marginally laughable.

Sacred texts like the New Testament, the Baghavad Gita, and Daodejing are allegory and metaphor written in the language and context of the late Bronze Age. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that Protestants started insisting on biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy. And to this day, Protestants are just a minority of world Christianity.

I think the atheism of Frederich Neitzche has a lot to offer, and I do not begrudge anyone that intellectual path to a meaningful life.

Biblical literalism is obviously laughable. But at least to me, there is a lot of truth and spiritual power in the ancient sacred texts of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, even if we have to understand them from the prism of the 21st century.
 
More often elected by money


The feet thing is not for people considering themselves sheep in a flock
 
evince said:
Beliefs are personal

Trying to organize them with large numbers of people and UNELECTED leaders (churches) is asking for them to be taken over by evil humans
Click to expand...

Exactly how I see it. Yet we are social beings and most of us require confirmation of our beliefs by having them shared with others. Whether it's "blue is the most beautiful color," "The Packers are the greatest football team," or "Hip hop rules," we all seek confirmation.

And that makes us vulnerable to those who would take advantage.
 
evince said:
Humans no doubt first worshiped nature


The “gods” who made the stream run and the berries grow


Mans mind was wired by needing food and water along with shelter needed to feel respect for nature to survive



Then it evolved


Man moved away from nature

Developed systems to grow food at need


Developed systems to deliver water at need


Man then began to worship themselves


So god became a human form


If religion keeps changing


Than how is it’s views the actual and all time truth?


Because it never was
Click to expand...

Great observation. The rise of organized religion seems to coincide around the world with the creation of agriculture and animal husbandry.
 
goat said:
I can't get away from Moses and Monotheism and Freud's claim that Moses was killed by the jews for preaching a kinder, gentler god than Yahweh, the exact same thing gnostics were teaching at that time. Knowledgeable jews were tired of 100s of years of war. The less militant the god, the better chance we have at avoiding war. Freud took more risks than Jung and that's why Freud is still relevant as a philosopher.
Click to expand...

Where do you fit in the gentle, peaceful Christ who told us to "Love your neighbors" and who preached and practiced tolerance?
 
BidenPresident said:
Religion is for the weak of mind. We should pity the religious.
Click to expand...

That is not going to help you understand your fellow man


It’s a dead end of thought



Jesus was a great man who loved mankind and sought goodness in the world


As were most leaders of world religions


Once they are gone and the structure is already there



The evil often stand in their place
 
Concart said:
Religion believes in the carrot and the stick. Spirituality believes in man's basic decency and in its connection to others. Religion does not teach, it dictates. Spirituality teaches us, instructs us and advances us. Totalitarian governments want to stamp out the spirit. They also want to replace the dogma with THEIR dogma. So it's perfectly logical that authoritarianism is the enemy of both. There is some truth to the idea that we viewed parents as 'Gods', because as infants we need to be told what to do. An infant doesn't know that playing in the street is dangerous. I'd still argue that Gods are a product of superstition and fear, and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Freud is credited for the belief that parents continue to haunt their children far into adulthood. Today they call it emotional development and is something most of us have to work out as adults. I don't blame my parents for me being damaged but they Shirley got me started in that direction.
 
evince said:
Beliefs are personal


Trying to organize them with large numbers of people and UNELECTED leaders (churches) is asking for them to be taken over by evil humans
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but I also think ritual and tradition are are very important for a large number of humans.

Hinduism, the Catholic Church, Judaism, Islam could not really exist without some kind of institutional social contract among it's adherents.

I really do think we tend to underestimate how important ritual is as a sociological practice.
 
Cypress said:
In principle, some of your criticisms have validity, but I feel your take is too one dimensional.

Many world religions do not posit an afterlife, for one thing.

As for science, the third most important person in Christianity after Jesus and Paul - Saint Augustine - wrote that interpretation of scipture is provisional and always needs to be revised and updated based upon the current state of knowlege of the natural world.

For the most part, perceived conflict between science and religion is an artifact of the 19th century and 20th centuries. On balance, Christianity was Europe's most important patron of science and natural philosophy - many of the greatest scientists in history were Catholic monks and priests.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were Catholic monks and priests, because not do so would have been heresy. That's what I mean when I say carrot and stick. Copernicus was not persecuted when alive, but after his death, his book was banned. Galileo was persecuted for his scientific observations. and his writings were also banned. I completely disagree that religion has been a friend of science. The exact opposite is true. Science does not care about religion. Religion is based on belief in the supernatural. But religion fears science. It loathes science. You can find the exceptions, but that is the rule.

The anti science position taken by the Trump cult is taken for exactly that reason; it conflicts with their Dear Leader. Their worship of Trump and their dogma are as close to a religion as you can get.
 
Concart said:
Copernicus was not persecuted when alive, but after his death, his book was banned. Galileo was persecuted for his scientific observations. and his writings were also banned. I completely disagree that religion has been a friend of science. The exact opposite is true. Science does not care about religion. Religion is based on belief in the supernatural. But religion fears science. It loathes science.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church was about to kill Galileo and would have if he did not renounce his work.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Where do you fit in the gentle, peaceful Christ who told us to "Love your neighbors" and who preached and practiced tolerance?
Click to expand...
That's my point. The origins of christianity goes back 700 years before Jesus. I grew up with the American militant Jesus and it was Freud who convinced me that I'm not alone. I could count all the atheist I knew on one hand but met about 50 atheist my first week on the net.

Kinder, gentler is how well we deal with the world as it is, instead of the world we're programmed to believe in. Very few people I know in the real world actually live in the real world.
 
Concart said:
Yes, they were Catholic monks and priests, because not do so would have been heresy. That's what I mean when I say carrot and stick. Copernicus was not persecuted when alive, but after his death, his book was banned. Galileo was persecuted for his scientific observations. and his writings were also banned. I completely disagree that religion has been a friend of science. The exact opposite is true. Science does not care about religion. Religion is based on belief in the supernatural. But religion fears science. It loathes science. You can find the exceptions, but that is the rule.

The anti science position taken by the Trump cult is taken for exactly that reason; it conflicts with their Dear Leader. Their worship of Trump and their dogma are as close to a religion as you can get.
Click to expand...

The fact that when this topic comes up, a reference to Galileo is always made shows us just how infrequent the Church's outright persecution of science and natural philosophy was.

Christianity was the main patron of science, natural philosophy, and universities in Europe for one thousand years.

There is no denying that there was periodic conflict between scholarship and the church occurred. But the Galileo affair is far more nuanced than most people realize.

Galileo's theory was rejected because it was a hypothesis without any substantial proof. The Vatican was willing to consider alternatives to the Aristotelian geocentric universe. But they were not going to accept any old hypothesis which came along.

Galileo had a hypothesis, but he did not have a mechanism, the mathematics, or satisfactory physical explanation. The Vatican had their own scientists - the Jesuits - look at Galileo's hypothesis and found it was not substantiated by physics as it was understood at the time. First, this was before we understood the laws of inertia. So it did not make sense based on the physics of the day that the earth could be spinning at thousands of miles per hour, without throwing people off balance, or even into outer space.

We had to wait for Newton's first law of mechanics to see in hindsight that what Galileo hypothesized could make sense.

Second, based on the state of scientific knowlege at the time, we did not know the stars were vast light years in distance from us. The expectation at the time is that if Galileo's hypothesis were correct, they would observe stellar parallax.

They did not observe stellar parallax.

We had to wait 100 years for Newton's first law, and his law of gravitation to have the mathematics and physics to substantiate Galileo's hypothesis.

As for Galileo's persecution after his second trial, that was more political than religious in nature. Galileo had an offensive personality, he offended many powerful people, and his persecution was caught up in the politics of the counter reformation.

Sidebar: Monks and Priests of the 19th and 20th centuries made important, even seminal scientific contributions.


I agree with you that the modem GOP and their fundamentalist base are hostile to science
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top