Freud And Presuppositions

A comparison between Freud and Eliade’s theories of religion with regards to their presuppositions, methods, focus of interests, and conclusions will be presented. Throughout, each theory is explored and used to critically examine the other. There are significant differences that stem from their presuppositions. As a consequence, it is argued that the theories take opposing views on the nature of religion.

The core presupposition that Freud makes is that the minds of people have created religions in order to paternalise nature and judicate culture (Freud FOAI DATE). Nature is viewed by Freud as a constant threat to humanity, from disasters, disease, to death. He views people as vulnerable in the face of nature. From this, he draws the psychoanalytic
The first is that his study of religion is based on a scientific approach as he claims: “…scientific work is the sole avenue that can lead to knowledge of the reality outside ourselves”. (Freud FOAI DATE Page 39). Freud attempts to employ a scientifically informed historical analysis of religions by giving a basic phylogenetic account of religious development from animism to monotheism (Freud FOAI DATE). He is then primarily concerned with giving a psychoanalytic account of religious beliefs based on desire and wishful thinking. The second part of his method is in discrediting religious beliefs and arguments by adopting a position of religious scepticism. He dismisses the dogmatic teachings of religions as they fail to provide satisfactory evidence in support of their claims. Instead, viewing religions as merely asserting the truth of their beliefs based on illusion. This scepticism is furthered by claims of the sort that “…it would be remarkable if our poor, ignorant bondsman ancestors had managed to solve all these difficult cosmic questions” (Freud FOAI DATE 41). Therefore, Freud is trying to determine the nature of religion empirically while conjunctly delegitimising religion as a reliable means for arriving at
The first is that he views people as fundamentally religious, the ability to phenomenally experience the sacred is an intrinsic part of being human. Secondly, this was a large part of his focus of interest. He was concerned about the modern de-sacralisation of the world in terms of people losing the means by which the sacred could be experienced (18 Images and symbols DATE). In the archaic world, he draws an explicit distinction between the sacred and the profane. The sacred being the supernatural, the real, powerful, and otherworldly. The profane, by contrast, is worldly: it is the mundane and meaningless (seven theories DATE). Yet this distinction can be bypassed, through symbolism and myth the profane can become sacred. He believes that archaic people imbued the profane with the sacred in an attempt to surround themselves with it, to live in a sacred world (40 images and symbols DATE). This type of living is lost to the modern person. As such, the aim of Eliade’s theory of religion is to provide a means by which one, through the study of religious history, can investigate and develop this religious