Sigmund Freud vs. Carl Jung

[ThatOwlWoman]

Not with so many thread bans it is not.

Removing the trolls is what makes it a great discussion. Got something to add to it besides criticism?

[Cypress]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

I'll stick with my Marx quote.

Yes, opium of the masses is one of the more memorable quotes about religion.

[Doc Dutch]

Yes, opium of the masses is one of the more memorable quotes about religion.

True. Like most memorable quotes that stay in the public consciousness, there's an element of true in the quote.
You know, just like in the quote "Never trust an atheist".

[goat]

True. Like most memorable quotes that stay in the public consciousness, there's an element of true in the quote.
You know, just like in the quote "Never trust an atheist".

Both Freud and Jung were atheist, with Jung being a little more complicated.

[Hawkeye10]

Both Freud and Jung were atheist, with Jung being a little more complicated.

I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God

Jung

[Doc Dutch]

Both Freud and Jung were atheist, with Jung being a little more complicated.

So?

[Cypress]

Both Freud and Jung were atheist, with Jung being a little more complicated.

The question raised here by Freud and Jung is not whether the gods and spirits are literally true.

They are speaking to a more interesting question:
Is religion as a sociological phenomena detrimental to humanity? Or, on balance, is it beneficial and serve a useful purpose?

[Doc Dutch]

The question raised here by Freud and Jung is not whether the gods and spirits are literally true.

They are speaking to a more interesting question:
Is religion as a sociological phenomena detrimental to humanity? Or, on balance, is it beneficial and serve a useful purpose?

Like most scientists, I think they took the Pascal's Wager view to some extent. They were also smart enough to recognize, regardless if there was a supernatural world/afterlife, that life on Earth was physical and, therefore, observable. They could observe and apply corrective procedures where needed.

[Cypress]

Like most scientists, I think they took the Pascal's Wager view to some extent. They were also smart enough to recognize, regardless if there was a supernatural world/afterlife, that life on Earth was physical and, therefore, observable. They could observe and apply corrective procedures where needed.

Well said, chap.

[goat]

The question raised here by Freud and Jung is not whether the gods and spirits are literally true.

They are speaking to a more interesting question:
Is religion as a sociological phenomena detrimental to humanity? Or, on balance, is it beneficial and serve a useful purpose?

Your OP shows that Jung believes religion is beneficial. My argument is Freud was justified in his attacks on religion. The way we interpret religion is what makes it dangerous. I doubt we can avoid a civil war directly caused by religion.

[goat]

Like most scientists, I think they took the Pascal's Wager view to some extent. They were also smart enough to recognize, regardless if there was a supernatural world/afterlife, that life on Earth was physical and, therefore, observable. They could observe and apply corrective procedures where needed.

Like electroconvulsive shock therapy?

[Doc Dutch]

Like electroconvulsive shock therapy?

Yes. It works, but has limits. Have you had the experience? Did it calm you?

[Cypress]

Your OP shows that Jung believes religion is beneficial. My argument is Freud was justified in his attacks on religion. The way we interpret religion is what makes it dangerous. I doubt we can avoid a civil war directly caused by religion.

As far as I can tell there has not been a major war strictly motivated by religion since the First Crusade, or the 30 Years War many centuries ago.

There just are not enough people willing to die on the basis of the question of whether Jesus or Siddhartha Guatama had a better insight into the ultimate transcendent truth.

The modern middle east is engaged in a conflict between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. That conflict is far more political in nature than theological.

Al Qaeda's goals were always more political than theological.

Hindu extremists and Buddhist nationalists in India and Myanmar are largely driven by nationalist and geopolitical reasons. I doubt the Baghavad Gita and Pali Canon are really figuring into their calculations in any significant way.

If one wants understand the root causes of modern conflicts, I suggest looking at natural resources, geopolitics issues, petroleum, and water before you start pouring over scrolls and sacred texts like the Daodejing and New Testament.

[Doc Dutch]

As far as I can tell there has not been a major war strictly motivated by religion since the First Crusade, or the 30 Years War many centuries ago.

There just are not enough people willing to die on the basis of the question of whether Jesus or Siddhartha Guatama had a better insight into the ultimate transcendent truth.

The modern middle east is engaged in a conflict between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. That conflict is far more political in nature than theological.

Al Qaeda's goals were always more political than theological.

Hindu extremists and Buddhist nationalists in India and Myanmar are largely driven by nationalist and geopolitical reasons. I doubt the Baghavad Gita and Pali Canon are really figuring into their calculations in any significant way.

If one wants understand the root causes of modern conflicts, I suggest looking at natural resources, geopolitics issues, petroleum, and water before you start pouring over scrolls and sacred texts like the Daodejing and New Testament.

Agreed wars and conflicts are over resources and territory (either for same resources or strategic reasons). Disagreed that any wars are primarily religious wars.

Religion is a tool and can be used as a motivator. "For God and Country!" can be translated into dozens of languages for armies around the world, past and present. Isn't that what the Palestinian suicide bombers say before blowing up a busful of tourists? "Allahu Akbar!"? ‘God is most great’. Religion is the tool to motivate the bomber, but the target and reason behind the bombing is for military, political and economic control over Israel.


The Thirty Years' War was a contest of control between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons. Again, religion was used as a motivator for cannon fodder in one of the most destructive wars in European history.

Fucking Euros, eh? No wonder my ancestors left that shithole. LOL

[Cypress]

Agreed wars and conflicts are over resources and territory (either for same resources or strategic reasons). Disagreed that any wars are primarily religious wars.

Religion is a tool and can be used as a motivator. "For God and Country!" can be translated into dozens of languages for armies around the world, past and present. Isn't that what the Palestinian suicide bombers say before blowing up a busful of tourists? "Allahu Akbar!"? ‘God is most great’. Religion is the tool to motivate the bomber, but the target and reason behind the bombing is for military, political and economic control over Israel.


The Thirty Years' War was a contest of control between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons. Again, religion was used as a motivator for cannon fodder in one of the most destructive wars in European history.

Fucking Euros, eh? No wonder my ancestors left that shithole. LOL

I know what you mean.

Human beings have been motivated by tribal concerns for two hundred thousand years. It becomes a matter of knowing which buttons to push.

My two cents: religion is a figleaf or avatar for nationalism.

Nationalism is really the defining characteristic of the modern world since the Napoleonic era.

Nationalism has been the motivation of all major conflicts of the last 200 years, and nationalism is what killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century.