Audio only:
Karlo Broussard, author of Prepare the Way: Overcoming Obstacles to God, the Gospel, and the Church, answers the common Freudian objection to belief in God—It’s just wish fulfillment.
Cy Kellett:
Is religion just a coping mechanism. Karlo Broussard is next. Hello and welcome to focus. The Catholic Answers podcast for living, understanding, and defending your Catholic faith. We’ll do a little defending today against the accusation that religion is all about a psychological need we have, to be comforted, most especially to be comforted in the face of the fact that we know that we’re going to die. Is that all that religion is? And I got to be honest with you, I am one of those people who needs a lot of comforting and I do find religion comforting, and so I need to know how do I address this concern most famously by Sigmund Freud, the idea that religion is just wish fulfillment. It’s a thing that is there to get us through the day, but it’s not related to any reality. If you want to ask about that kind of thing, you get Karlo Broussard in, and that’s what we did, and here’s what Karlo had to say about first of all, whether or not religion really is all that comforting, and if it is, is that a mark against God? Here’s Karlo.
Karlo Broussard, Catholic Answers’ apologist, and a prolific author, thanks for doing this with us again.
Karlo Broussard:
You’re welcome Cy. Thanks for having me brother.
Cy Kellett:
That is often made is that you’re just trying to make yourself feel better with all that religion stuff. And so, I wanted to talk to you about that. Is religion just a coping mechanism?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. So-
Karlo Broussard:
Well not, yes, it is a coping mechanism, but I’m just yes, I agree.
Cy Kellett:
But yeah, that’s the topic-
Karlo Broussard:
That’s the topic a hand.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. Yeah, okay, thank you for the clarity.
Karlo Broussard:
Just want to be precise.
Cy Kellett:
All right. So, you’ve accented to the topic.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. So there is, I’m sure you’ll talk about Freud, but there’s certainly this modern idea that religion emerges out of our psychological needs, basically. We need some comforting in this world and religion does the job, but if we’re really fully enlightened people, I guess, enlightened in a scientific sense, we would let go of that illusion, and we’d say, “Okay, that’s something that my psyche produced, but I need to face the cold reality that the material world is all there is,” or something like that.
Karlo Broussard:
Right? Yeah, it’s alleged that it’s merely a coping mechanism that’s not grounded in reality, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
So, we all have our coping mechanisms, right?
Cy Kellett:
Okay, so That’s interesting though. So, I guess it’s stated that way as if one follows from the other. It’s a coping mechanism, therefore not rooted in reality.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s-
Cy Kellett:
You’re saying that therefore, not-
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right, it would be a non-sequitur because friendships help us get through life, loving relationships, right?
Cy Kellett:
Right, right.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s in a sense, a coping mechanism if you want to define that as that which helps us get through the trials in everyday life, right? But that’s rooted in reality, at least some friendships are. You could have an illusion relative to a person that you think is your friend, right? But most of our friendships are real. It’s rooted in reality. They help us get through life. But some coping mechanisms are not rooted in reality, like drowning, our sorrows and alcohol as if the overindulgence in alcoholic beverages is going to make your sorrows and troubles go away. It’s not, right? That’s an illusion. So, this claim from many new atheists, modern atheists, those who are skeptical of religion will say, “Well, religion is just a coping mechanism that’s not rooted in reality.”
Cy Kellett:
Which-
Karlo Broussard:
And that is just simply to quell certain fears, to satisfy the desire that we have for protection and security, projecting onto God what we get from our father figures. We need to have something bigger and greater, more security, greater security, and comfort. And of course, this gains its traction from Sigmund Freud. He made this, “Argument,” because it’s not really an argument.
Cy Kellett:
He doesn’t actually argue it-
Karlo Broussard:
When it’s merely an assertion, right. In his 1927 book, The Future of an Illusion, he puts forward this idea that religious beliefs, or illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind, hence this claim is often called religion is just wish-thinking. Wishful thinking, wish fulfillment. He goes onto write, “As we already know the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood, arouse the need for protection. For protection through love, which was provided by the father and the recognition that this helplessness lasts throughout life.”
Karlo Broussard:
Oh no, I’m still helpless once I’m out of the roof, I move out from the house of my father, I’m no longer protected by my father, I’m still helpless and so therefore, Freud concludes we project that need of protection on to God. We feel that need and that desire with this idea of God, and religion, in providing the protection and helping us out in the helplessness that we once had satisfied with our father figure, but now we don’t anymore. And so, we need God. So, God’s just sort of an illusion, it’s a figment of our imagination or a construct of our imagination, in order to satisfy this desire for protection and to get rid of the feelings of helpless.
Cy Kellett:
Right. Right. Okay, so then two questions about what Freud had to say. One is, is it true? And two, if it is true, does that mean there’s no God? Do you see-
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah, well, first of all, he simply asserts that it is true, and gives no argument for it. And you often find this common among modern atheists. One example is the late Christopher Hitchens. He actually refers to Freud’s argument in his book, God Is Not Great. And writes this critique of wish-thinking is strong and unanswerable, but there’s no argumentation or reasons that are given for why we should think God is merely a construct of our imagination. It’s mere assertion without argumentation, which only calls for a negation of that assertion. We could simply say, “No, God is not a figment of our imagination. God is not merely a coping mechanism.” And this is one thing that many scholars, in response to Freud, point out that it’s just merely assertion.
Cy Kellett:
Well, Why do you think Hitchens is saying it’s unanswerable? Because it seems to have, well, maybe I’m asking you to judge Christopher Hitchens’ mind, maybe you can’t do that, but-
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah, I don’t know exactly the reason why, but I mean, it is answerable, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, it is answerable. It’s clearly answerable.
Karlo Broussard:
To show that … That’s right, because here’s one way we could do this. We could point out certain flawed assumptions that Freud is making, and many atheists make following Freud. One assumption is that there are no rational grounds for belief in God. I suppose, even before we go there, let’s back up a moment and point out the fact that this is merely a psychological explanation for belief in God, which in reality, in and of itself has no bearing on whether God actually exists, right?
Cy Kellett:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
And whether there could be a true religion, given the reality of God.
Cy Kellett:
I could, in other words, believe in God for all the wrong reasons, and God would still exist.
Karlo Broussard:
And would … That’s right. But notice Freud’s apparent argument. He’s concluding religion is merely an illusion, which would entail that the belief that God exists is an illusion as well, right?
Cy Kellett:
And that doesn’t flow from what he says.
Karlo Broussard:
And his premise that he’s basing the conclusion on is, well, we believe in God because of the psychological needs. But as you pointed, that conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise because you could believe in God for all the wrong reasons, you can have all of these psychological explanations for my belief in God, and they’d be flawed, but yet God still exists. And so, we have to draw this distinction between the psychological explanation for the belief and the question of whether-
Cy Kellett:
Whether god-
Karlo Broussard:
Or not God actually exists, which brings me to my next point where I was beginning to go, is that Floyd …
Cy Kellett:
Floyd? Floyd.
Karlo Broussard:
Sigmund Freud, Freud is assuming that there’s no rational grounds for belief in God, right? There would only be a need for a psychological explanation for belief in God if there are no reasonable grounds for believing that God exists. So, you have to ask the question, “Well, why even come up with sort of psychological explanation? Well, the assumption is, well, there is no reasons to believe that God exists, so we’ve got to explain it some other way,” right? No good reasons. No reasons grounded in reality and objectivity. So, we got to come up with this psychological explanation. But there are plenty of good arguments for God’s existence that have been put forward by philosophers throughout, since the time of the ancient Greeks and Plato and Aristotle, right?
Cy Kellett:
And this doesn’t do away with all the intellectual arguments. It doesn’t touch them-
Karlo Broussard:
No, that’s right. No, it doesn’t.
Cy Kellett:
I see what you’re saying.
Karlo Broussard:
Freud’s appeal to a psychological explanation for belief, totally ignores the great intellectual tradition that provides other kinds of reasons for belief in God, reasons that are not psycho-analytically explained, but they are grounded in objective reality, right? And certain principles of knowledge and principles of being, etc. all of these fundamental principles of philosophy that they use to reason to God’s existence, like causality. So, Freud’s argument, and of course, Hitchens and others are entirely ignoring, or I should say ignoring entirely the mountain of argumentation that has been put forward in the philosophical tradition, that God exists, which would give us good reasons to believe that God exists. And there’s also another assumption that Freud is making here, that I think is problematic. Notice, he seems to be saying that because, or since religion and belief in God brings us comfort, therefore, it’s merely an illusion. But wait a minute, Freud, why is it the case that something that brings us comfort is automatically necessarily illusory, and not real?
Karlo Broussard:
Because if we’re going to follow that logic, well, then we’re going to have to throw out all real friendships, right? I mean, we’re friends. So, you bring me comfort, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
Sometimes, Sometimes I annoy you, Karlo, I know where that was going.
Karlo Broussard:
I appreciate our friendship, Cy. You bring me great joy and happiness in my life. I enjoy the times that we are together and we’re doing work for the Lord together. But just because our friendship brings me comfort-
Cy Kellett:
Doesn’t mean-
Karlo Broussard:
That doesn’t mean the friendship is illusory.
Cy Kellett:
Right, exactly.
Karlo Broussard:
And figment of by imagination, right? So, Freud seems to be assuming that whatever brings us comfort is not real, but that’s absurd, okay?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
So, these are a couple of flawed assumptions that Freud and atheists who are following him, make that I think we can challenge. So, those are a couple of ideas. I have a few more to share, but any thoughts that you have?
Cy Kellett:
Well, my main thought, I guess, just to wrap this up is we would admit that are maybe times in our own life, but certainly there are many instances of people, who believe in God foolishly, not that the belief in God is foolish, but maybe foolishly or even for psychiatric reasons, for example. Like the person who believes that they have personal relationships with people who aren’t there, and that kind of thing. So, we don’t have to deny that … We don’t have to say this never happens, right?
Karlo Broussard:
Correct. There might be some people-
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, okay, that’s what I wanted to get at.
Karlo Broussard:
Who have unsound reasons, flawed reasons for believing that God exists. But that doesn’t mean all people-
Cy Kellett:
Okay, that’s what I wanted-
Karlo Broussard:
Believe in God for those reasons. But even that, all people, even the idea or the appeal to the psychological explanations or the reasons for why someone believes in God, has no bearing on the fact that God exists, has no bearing on the question whether God exists, right? And that’s the ultimate question that we have to answer because if God exists, well, then religion would not be illusory. Religion would not be an illusion because the essence of religion is that virtue, the good, habitual disposition in which we relate to the transcendent reality, the creator, through certain beliefs and practices, etc., and we’ll talk about that some other time for another episode of the essence of what religion is, but it’s founded upon the reality that God exists.
Karlo Broussard:
At least, if we’re going to talk about the appropriate virtue of religion. But here’s another thought I wanted to share. Another problem with this argumentation, presented by Freud and other atheists who follow him, is that it actually cuts both ways. So, consider this. So, let’s say you’re the atheist and you’re telling me, “Karlo, you just believe in God because it brings you comfort. You just want to get rid of your feelings of helplessness and calm your fears of death and stuff,” Right? Okay. Well, if that’s the … And then you conclude, “Therefore God is not real. Religion is an illusion.” Well, if that’s the case, well maybe, perhaps Cy, you as the atheist, maybe you’re didn’t … Saying God doesn’t exist because you just don’t want to be subject to some transcendent authority who oversees you and tells you what to do and what not to do, right?
Cy Kellett:
Okay, so like a psychology of rebellion or selfishness, could explain my unbelief-
Karlo Broussard:
Maybe … That is correct. And so, according to your logic, we should therefore conclude it is true, it is false that God does not exist, right? Your belief is false. Your belief, God doesn’t exist, it’s false. Why? Because we have the psychological explanation for your unbelief, namely, you fear having a transcendent law giver over and above you.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, right. Or you just don’t like it.
Karlo Broussard:
You don’t … Or you just don’t like it. You don’t want to subject yourself to that law.
Cy Kellett:
Now, you’re not making in that argument.
Karlo Broussard:
I’m not.
Cy Kellett:
But you’re saying that that argument would be consistent with Freud’s argument against religion.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s correct.If we were to take the logic embedded in Freud’s argument.
Cy Kellett:
You can just turn it around the other way-
Karlo Broussard:
Turn the tables, it’s turning the tables and you can turn it right around and use the same logic against him, and atheists who are using this argumentation. So, it cuts both ways. Another thing to consider too is well, if religion is illusory, an illusion simply because we’re creating all of this stuff to give us comfort and security, well, what about all of those beliefs and religions that are unpleasant, right? I mean like, Christianity many, well, not just Christianity, but many other religions have some view of hell, where if you sin-
Cy Kellett:
That’s not very comforting.
Karlo Broussard:
Wrong doing … That’s not very comforting, right? So, if we’re constructing this whole religion thing simply for comfort, why would we include all of these uncomfortable teachings? As Catholics, we abstain, we have certain days of abstinence and fasting, that doesn’t bring comfort. The whole point of that is to make you uncomfortable. And so it fails to consider the fact that some religions have these uncomfortable things. And so, that actually militates against the idea that religion is some construct simply for bringing ourselves comfort, in order to comfort ourselves.
Cy Kellett:
Well, and you can actually see that in many of the … Not just at the level of discomfort, but at the level of the challenge of religion actually compels many people to undertake great difficulties that they would not undertake otherwise.
Karlo Broussard:
It may, I mean, consider the Christian view, right? Within Christianity, we are called to be willing to lay down our very lives-
Cy Kellett:
And many have.
Karlo Broussard:
For Jesus Christ. And many have. And that’s not a very comfortable thing. If I’m making this stuff up, I would definitely not be including that within my system of belief, right?
Cy Kellett:
Freud should’ve seen that Martin Scorsese movie about the Japanese martyrs, then he’d stopped worrying about religion being too comforting. I mean these horrible tortures, these people for the name of Christ.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah, finally, there’s one last thing, Cy, I’d like to share. And that is, I think Freud got it backwards, right?
Cy Kellett:
Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
And so, he’s arguing that our desire for God proves that God does not exist, basically is what he’s saying, but I would argue that the … That was Cajun, you heard that? I got a little, “Dat” in there, “Dat, dat, dat, dat.”
Cy Kellett:
I didn’t hear the, “Dat.” Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
I would argue that the desire for God is actually evidence that God exists. And this actually gets to an argument for God’s existence that many philosophers in the philosophical tradition have proposed, and that is an argument from the desire for happiness, that when we reflect upon ourselves, we discover that we desire the good. We can’t choose anything or do anything unless we perceive some good that I’m going to possess in the choices that I’m making, whether that’s a real good, an apparent good, that’s a different question, but I’m at least perceiving some good to be acquired, to possess, that’s going to satisfy me, make me happy. And philosophers say this is an indication that we’re hardwired to go for the good, to go after what I perceive to be good. But whenever we reflect further, we realize that we don’t just desire some good.
Karlo Broussard:
We have a tendency, and that a natural inclination of a desire for a good, than which no greater good could be desired because it’s often the case that when we acquire some good, whenever we recognize that it’s limited, that there is some more good to be desired, we desire more good. We’re not totally and completely satisfied with some limited good, like fame, power, glory, money, material goods. We recognize there is greater good to be acquired or to be had, and we desire that, right? And so, that’s an indication that we have this natural orientation, this natural tendency, this natural directedness to a good, than which no greater good could be desired. A good that would not be limited, but unlimited and completely satiate my desire for goodness.
Cy Kellett:
Right, yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
A complete good, a perfect good, an unlimited good, not bounded in any way. Well, if Aristotle is correct, which I think he is, this fundamental principle that nature does nothing in vain, we have a natural inclination for food, there’s food out there. We have a natural inclination for drink, right? There’s things to drink out there. We have a natural inclination for engaging in certain activities to propagate the human species, there is a complimentary-
Cy Kellett:
Gender and sex, yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Partner … That’s right, to propagate the human species. We have a natural inclination for an unlimited, infinite good. A good, than which no greater good could be desired. And if nature does nothing in vain and we have this natural inclination, something that’s hardwired within us within, well then that infinite good-
Cy Kellett:
Exists.
Karlo Broussard:
Must exist. And so, that’s the argument from the desire for happiness. Happiness, because, in as much as we possess and acquire the good, it makes us happy.
Cy Kellett:
So, it’s not just a wish then. It’s a desire that we have.
Karlo Broussard:
Very good point because you could, given what we just said, it’s not some desire that we construct. It’s not a self-constructed desire. It’s a natural desire. A desire that’s implanted in us, in our very nature as human beings, is hard wired. So, it’s not something we create, it’s something we discover.
Cy Kellett:
About-
Karlo Broussard:
Upon self-analysis, we reflect upon our activities as human beings. We reflect upon … I mean, I didn’t create my intellect. I discover, “Hey, I got an intellect. I can know things.” I didn’t create my will, I discover I have a will and freedom of choice. And so, this desire for God, for the infinite good, it’s not something we construct. It’s something we discover. So, Freud actually got it backwards. So, rather than the desire for God being evidence against God, it’s evidence for God.
Cy Kellett:
Before we did this interview, Karlo gave me the quotes, and I had to say, reading the quote from Christopher Hitchens, I said to Karlo, “That’s a point, he’s making a clever point, but it’s not an argument.” And this is something that Karlo responded, and I think you got a flavor of that in this interview with him, that these are not arguments. These are just assertions. It’s just an assertion to say, “Well, the only reason you believe in God, that you’ve made up this God because that’s wish fulfillment.” There is no argument there. It’s just someone else’s opinion about your psychological interior, so to speak, and what your motives are. So, we don’t really have to answer it with arguments, all we have to say is, “No, it’s not.” But it’s always helpful to have Karlo around to explain what the arguments are in favor of God, in the face of those kinds of assertions.
So, thanks for being with us. And if you like, what Karlo does, if you like what we do here, would you support us financially? If you can give us a few bucks, maybe you’ve got more than a few bucks, you can go to GiveCatholic.com and put a little note there when you give, that this is for Catholic Answers Focus, and then that will get to us. GiveCatholic.com. Also, we love to get your emails and quite a few of the programs we’re doing now are suggested to us by listeners. So, you’re always welcome to suggest a program or a guest that you would like us to have here on Catholic Answers Focus. You can send us your email at Focus@Catholic.com.
Focus@catholic.com. And don’t forget, if you’re listening on a podcast service right now, maybe subscribe. That way, you’ll be notified when new episodes come. And if you would be willing, give us that five star review and maybe a few words about what you get out of Catholic Answers Focus, and that will help grow the podcast as well. And you, YouTubers, like and subscribe. Like and subscribe. We’re growing, we’re grateful. Please continue to like and subscribe. I’m Cy Kellett, your host. Thanks for being with us. We’ll see you next time, God willing, right here on Catholic Answers Focus.