Are theism 

and scientific knowledge antagonists? Sigmund Freud seems to believe this, and
in this paper that was later turned into a monograph, he addresses this issue from a
psychoanalytic standpoint. Religion was seen by Him as an issue that straddled the line
between illusion and eventually delusion. In Freud's opinion, religion was a cultural issue.
According to Freud, there is little difference between culture and civilization. The theme is
now linked to civilization and the issues with religion, as culture would become descriptive
and civilization would become substantive. Freud is capable of suggesting an intriguing
solution to the issues of "self-sufficiency," "personal expression," and "autonomy" by
initially identifying civilization and outlining its patterns. Freud exclaims that It is amazing
that, despite how very little number of humans are able to survive in solitude, they
nonetheless view the compromises that civilization requires of them in order to enable a
social life as a tremendous obligation. The aim of society, its true purpose in being, is to
protect us from nature, continues Freud. Through this conflict, Freud is able to highlight the
contradictions between individualism and collective and provide the groundwork for a
critique of religion. According to Freud, mankind sought relief from its sad situation and its
failure to subdue nature. Because natural creation leaves humans defenceless in its midst,
the farce must have a goal. Additionally, civilization forces depredations on people that
must be made up for; otherwise, why would anybody consent to such conditions? Religion is
thus born, and the deities are given their respective roles.

The Future of an Illusion by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud opens with an incorporation that
appears to have been heavily influenced by the circumstances in both Germany and Austria
in Europe when it was drafted and published. human civilisation is in emergency; most
individuals (i.e., the labourers) are "adversaries of civilization" who are orchestrating to
decimate it. Civilization is explicitly described as a minority of "representatives" who are
required to compel the unmotivated "common people" to counteract their reluctance to
work ,in other words, with the capitalist framework. It is interesting to note that the middle
to late 1920s saw unrest, protests, and sometimes even unsuccessful insurgencies in the
European nations. He acknowledges that almost all individuals are not interested in
maintaining a society where a few number of individuals enjoy the majority of the delights
and the big chunk of persons endure much of the hardships, but he holds out little optimism
that this will ever improve. The underlying argument of the text is that civilisation is the
abandonment of enjoyment, or of the innate inclinations. It has been noted several times
that Freud's conception of mankind shares many similarities with the Christian concept of
"sinfulness"; in this particular instance, he asserts that our basic tendencies are to commit
murder and rape. He next inquires as to the mechanisms by which society carries out this
task of suppressing the inherent inclinations, identifying them as "illusions"—a term he uses
to refer to a skewed perception of actuality that serves our purposes. He then discusses
religion as the foremost potent of these falsehoods. There isn't anything fresh in what he
says; he draws a comparison between faith and insanity and puts out the notion that
religion is mostly a form of wish-fulfilment dream. He continues by having a sequence of
"conversations" with the devil's advisor, who finds fault with him, criticises him of
inconsistencies, and asserts that even though faith is a fantasy Freud shouldn't be referring
that out since it is required for individuals to trust it is genuine in order to retain civilization
and for individuals to be consoled in the inevitable anguish of actuality. Freud claims that his
publication is safe because nobody is going to actually trust it. He whereupon claims that
religious conviction is now decreasing and that although the distortions of faith were
once utilized to be the most efficacious assistance for civilization, by proceeding to link
civilization and ethics to religion there is a risk that when individuals realise the religion is
false they will dismiss the ethics which has no foundation. Therefore, it is absolutely
essential to seek logical assertions to endorse his claims. Additionally, he contends that
since religious dogma's conservatism makes it difficult to enact the changes required to
stave off further drastic transformation, it is ultimately to blame for the issue. As a result, he
transitions from talking like such a conservative republican to appearing like a leftist or even
a reforming socialist democrat in just around as the reader proceeds to the end of the
book. 

He continues by making the comparison between the growth of civilization and the growth
of the person, and makes the case that, just as youngsters (according to psychoanalytic
principle) undergo a "neurotic" phase as they transition from an infantile affliction of the
pleasure principle (id) to an older situation of the reality principle (ego), religious ideology
reflects the neurotic juncture in civilization that will eventually be replaced by the
sophisticated cognition that is the reality principle. 

It would be difficult to miss the odd contradiction that runs throughout Freud's assertions:
religion protects itself from rational thought in much the same manner that Freud defends
his own emphatic beliefs from empirical criticism. Since Freud's views are almost hard to
verify objectively, they go against a key tenet of the Future of an illusion, which is that
ridiculous opinions should be exposed and disproved. The Oedipus complex is only
a singular illustration of a ridiculous theory that Freud firmly trusted , all the while raging
about the acceptance of other falsehoods. Religion uses the phrase "credo quia
absurdum"—"I believe merely because it is absurd"—to justify itself from empirical
investigation and can be acknowledged on the grounds of reason. Although Freud's beliefs
may seem less ridiculous than, say, the virgin birth or the reincarnation of Jesus, they are
just as unverifiable from a scientific standpoint. It's been suggested that
Freud's psychoanalytical theory is an ineffective method for conducting such research since
it provides an inadequate explanation for the "superior" cultural capacities of our society.
Because no 2 different individuals' mental reasons are precisely the same, religion must be
subjective. This may resemble Jung's theory of archetypes vs complexes; Freud believed that
all religions operated from a single fundamental archetype, the Father, while neglecting the
variety of psychological factors that contribute to claimed devotion.

According to Friedman, Freud's grasp of particular religious self-defense is revelatory. He

believes it demonstrates his ignorance of religion and his reluctance to engage it on its
proper conditions. Friedman goes on to say that it's possible that Freud overlooked the idea
that religion developed from a viewpoint that is fundamentally distinct from current
scientific knowledge and so needs a distinct framework for comprehension.
Perhaps through stating that a religious criticism of science is permissible, Freud implies that
a religious evaluation of scientific knowledge is likewise legitimate, despite the fact that
these are basically two separate spheres of discourse.

Religious belief and scientific knowledge are only two examples of conceptual disparities;
each religion also differs significantly from the other faiths. Freud grouped religions lacking
archetypal paternal figures (eg.Hinduism)—into purely monotheistic faiths by using the term
"religion" to refer to all forms of belief. Given that Hinduism places a strong emphasis on
karmic retribution, Freud's wider criticisms are still relevant. However, the idea of a singular,
all-powerful parent image is not relevant. Akin to this, it might be difficult to square the idea
of the Oedipal father with faiths including Buddhism and Unitarianism, which place a strong
emphasis on the concepts of self-understanding and tolerance. The Abrahamic faiths of
Catholicism, Judaism, and Islamism may have been the only ones Freud intended to criticise;
some over generalition  may have been caused by his prejudiced perspective
considering that he primarily saw Jewish patients.

Like in his earlier writings, Freud demonstrates in the Future of illusion that he is a maestro

of the "after the event" error. His views on human faith, to say little if anything of his
conception of human sexual desires, perform in a self-referential manner: "You find it
difficult to maintain a positive bond with your dad due to your Oedipal troubles; contrarily,
you have such a positive bond with your dad due to your remedied Oedipal problems."
There are many Freudian syllogisms in this book as well. For example, if one holds a religious
conviction, they must have immature desires to maintain feelings of safety and affiliation.
One could question, But what if someone does not adhere to faith? So one doesn't need
protection and membership to a social group? Freud implies that these must be the only
motivations for faith because they were created out of beings' most primal desires—
security, solace, and a broad perception of ethical order. This doesn't "explain" religion any
more than a declaration of a young child's need—such as "newborns require milk"—
explains the value of milk to adults. It is impossible to completely describe what "milk" is,
the essence of that affinity, or (in an excellent parallel, certainly) why grownups still
consume it in quarts using the fundamental principle of the infant's interaction with milk.

a Second logical error undermines Freud's essay: since religion is based on irrational ideas, it
follows that having religious views is also illogical. Although his claim might not be incorrect,
his analytical method fails this straightforward rational criteria. Another illustration of this
might be as follows: Columbus believed he had uncovered a brand-new commercial path to
India when he passed away. Although his assumption was incorrect, his finding was
nevertheless incredibly significant in and of itself. (In a similar spirit, James 29 states that
"religious visionaries have frequently showed indications of neurological imbalance," but
that this destabilisation does not, of course, invalidate their brilliance.) Although the
"reality" of religion as an external reality is questionable at best, there may nevertheless be
intrinsic value in religion.

In his proposal for a society without a religious doctrine, Freud included a fallacious
premise: that the elimination of religion will inevitably result in a culture of logical
intellectuals. As if interpersonal psychology, competitive sporting events, diplomacy, and
government management were the last refuges of reasoned action! This idea is not
substantiated elsewhere in the history of humanity. As indicated in the opening of this
study, Freud had a notoriously pessimistic perspective of people, which would seem to
conflict with his own research on the human mind, which claims that we are inherently
illogical. Simply having no faith just wouldn't alter our fundamental human character; we
would still be aggressive, antagonistic, and dysfunctional just as before, with one less
channel for that neuroticism.
The idea that collective compulsion was used to bring in earlier civilization indicates that our
predecessors were unable to adhere to the societal structure shared by all existing sociable
species. This is a flawed assertion since it assumes that our ancient, god-fearing forebears,
including Socrates, Decartes, keppler, Copernicus, and others, were intellectually inferior.
Given all the incredible accomplishments achieved by religious thinkers as well as inside
highly religious civilizations, I find this to be reductive. This presents an untrue comparison
among our "unintelligent" forefathers and their logical, modern, nonreligious descendants.
The illogical conduct that permeates most "contemporary" civilizations, including our own,
would appear to be ignored by this as well. Even though Hong Kong is one of the most
atheistic places in the world, we can nevertheless see irrational, impulsive behaviour. Pay
attention to those who are compulsive shoppers at the IFC mall, bankers who are binge
drinking, and students who put off their term papers until the night before they are due.
Wish atheism could protect us from the shortcomings of humanity! Unfortunately, adopting
reason requires more work than just giving up religion.