Freud & Apologetics

[Micawber]

Hey all!

I was reading John Henry Newman and his argument for the existence of God from our conscience/moral sense; that we are aware of a person/voice with whom we connect intuitively with sanctions/rewards, etc. This seems like a very plausible argument to me.

It got me thinking, however, that many of the people I know would assume (almost reflexively) an immediate Freudian perspective on this: that this “person” can just as easily be conceived in Freudian terms. That real assent to this may be a misapprehension because we are mistaking as aspect of our psyche for God.

Now, I don’t agree with this^ - and yet, I am not sure how I can convincingly discern (for myself or others) the difference.

Do you have any advice? What do you all think?

 

[Della]

Merely listening to our own psyche is very different from listening to God. Our psyche will tell us what we want to hear, while God will tell us what we need to hear. We can delude ourselves quite easily–we do it all the time when we make excuses for ourselves. But, God never deludes us and most often that inner voice telling us to do what we know we ought to do makes us quite uncomfortable. No human superego does that. When we hear a voice telling us to do what is hard but must be done, that is the voice of God.

 

[Micawber]

Merely listening to our own psyche is very different from listening to God. Our psyche will tell us what we want to hear, while God will tell us what we need to hear. We can delude ourselves quite easily–we do it all the time when we make excuses for ourselves. But, God never deludes us and most often that inner voice telling us to do what we know we ought to do makes us quite uncomfortable. No human superego does that. When we hear a voice telling us to do what is hard but must be done, that is the voice of God.

hmmm…really? I thought the whole point of the superego is that it gives voice to the moral standards of the society? On the other hand, one of the weaknesses of this is: suppose the “society” sanctioned slavery? Where, then, does that proverbial “voice” inside your head (saying that slavery is wrong) come from? Maybe that’s the answer to my question?

 

[Micawber]

I think the answer to my question is this: if someone were to say that I’m mistaking the Super-ego for God, one can reply with a question: where does the Super-Ego come from? The Super-ego is a symbolic internalization of social values/morals that one gets from parents and society generally. But the problem with that answer is, how would anyone ever arrive at a moral position at odds with those socially-derived morals? Suppose I always lived in a society that approves of the slavery of blonde people - where would I get the idea that such slavery was wrong? The answer is that morality isn’t, of course, socially derived. Which sort of collapses the Freudian critique.

 

[Della]

I did not know that the superego was supposed to be the voice of societal mores, but of what we call the conscience. I will take it as a given that you know more about it than I since I know next to nothing about Freudian symbolism except the basic concept of id, ego, and superego.

The question to my mind is this: Is the conscience merely the voice of societal mores? I don’t believe so. I believe the conscience is our God-given inner voice through which God speaks to us regarding right and wrong. Our consciences are wounded, however, which is why the Church tells us we need to form our consciences in line with its teachings.

As to slavery, there have been various kinds of slavery down through the centuries not just absolute possession by one person/group over another. The ancient Israelites had slaves, but their slaves could win their freedom after serving so many years. So, it was more like being indentured servants rather than slaves. Since you use slavery as your example, are you trying to ask a question about slavery? If so, why not just ask it?

 

[Micawber]

I did not know that the superego was supposed to be the voice of societal mores, but of what we call the conscience. I will take it as a given that you know more about it than I since I know next to nothing about Freudian symbolism except the basic concept of id, ego, and superego.

The question to my mind is this: Is the conscience merely the voice of societal mores? I don’t believe so. I believe the conscience is our God-given inner voice through which God speaks to us regarding right and wrong. Our consciences are wounded, however, which is why the Church tells us we need to form our consciences in line with its teachings.

As to slavery, there have been various kinds of slavery down through the centuries not just absolute possession by one person/group over another. The ancient Israelites had slaves, but their slaves could win their freedom after serving so many years. So, it was more like being indentured servants rather than slaves. Since you use slavery as your example, are you trying to ask a question about slavery? If so, why not just ask it?

The conscience cannot be (as the Freudian, I believe, would maintain) merely the voice of societal mores; I’m using the history of slavery to support this assertion.

 

[Della]

The conscience cannot be (as the Freudian, I believe, would maintain) merely the voice of societal mores; I’m using the history of slavery to support this assertion.

So, what would they claim the conscience to be?

 

[Micawber]

So, what would they claim the conscience to be?

My understanding is that they believe the “super-ego” to be the internalization of social-derived morality - from parents and the larger community.

Then, I thought: this cannot be correct: because that^ cannot account for when we internally move against socially-derived norms/morality.

An example might be this: if we lived in a community where slavery is sanctioned and is the norm (say, pre-civil war south in the US), still many people would internally know that slavery is wrong. Something “outside” the social morality tells us its wrong. Our moral conscience must be rooted in something else. Therefore the moral conscience=super ego is incoherent.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Della]

My understanding is that they believe the “super-ego” to be the internalization of social-derived morality - from parents and the larger community.

Then, I thought: this cannot be correct: because that^ cannot account for when we internally move against socially-derived norms/morality.

An example might be this: if we lived in a community where slavery is sanctioned and is the norm (say, pre-civil war south in the US), still many people would internally know that slavery is wrong. Something “outside” the social morality tells us its wrong. Our moral conscience must be rooted in something else. Therefore the moral conscience=super ego is incoherent.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes, it does. The conscience is the “voice I did not know” the Psalmist talks about in Ps.81. It comes from outside ourselves and yet resonates with what we know to be true even in the teeth of everyone else saying, “But that’s the way things are”. I remember talking to my mother about WWII. She casually mentioned the Japanese internment camps–something I’d never heard about before (not something taught to elementary students at the time). I was horrified to hear that US citizens had been interred simply for their ancestry. She tried to defend it, using the logic of the time that most accepted then. But, at last she had to admit that it wasn’t right, but still thought it had been necessary. My mom was a good person who wouldn’t have hurt anyone, but she had allowed the circumstances to dictate morality (although she was a teenager when WWII in 1941 and had no say in national policy). We cannot let the mores of the times inform our conscience. We must listen to that “voice I did not know” instead.