Birch Grove

In our “increasingly secular society” (as some Christians like to say), one might ask the question, “Why religion? I mean, why believe in anything at all?” Some, especially those concerned about the increasing divisiveness in world religions (ex: Muslims v. Hindus in India, Muslims v. Christians v. Jews in the Middle East, Evangelicals v. everyone else in America) and remembering the evils perpetuated in the past by some world religions (Christianity, through Catholicism is a major example), choose to reject organized religion altogether, but retain an assertion of the existence of God, or rather a “higher power,” as is now clichéd.

Freud offers one answer. In his book, The Future of an Illusion, he asserts that God (the paternalistic Christian God of the mid 1800s) is a human construct. That the primitive human mind, in an effort to explain things beyond its ken and to rebuff the horrors and terrors of the night (fear, powerlessness, death), invented God and that it is now so programmed into our minds that we cling to the notion of an All-Powerful God-the-Father. Freud also writes that as children we are fed a mythic version of religion (a.k.a. Christianity), full of miracles and heroes, that we readily accept because we are not mature enough to do otherwise. He then asserts that since religion suppresses questioning and doubt, that we retain that childish version of religion, even as we are adults with acute powers of Reason. Freud’s alternative is not to renounce God, but rather, to grow up and switch to Logos, the Classical-tinged god of Reason. Renunciation is not possible because civilization as we know it depends upon the existence of some sort of religious social structure.

Actually, The Future of an Illusion is a long, rambling, and contradictory book that serves basically as a medium for Freud to listen to his own voice. But he raises an important point: is religion merely a construction of our needy subconscious?

First, allow me, as many scholars now love to do, debunk Freud, in my own Pagan way.

Freud’s version of religion is based entirely on a patriarchal version of Christianity and does not in any way include any other religions, especially polytheistic ones, or those with female deities. Freud’s version of religion is also based on a patriarchal society, in which the father was a central figure (hence his analysis of the subconscious as creating a father/protector god, someone to be both loved and feared). If Freud were correct in his analysis that the human need for God stems from the unconscious, it is my belief that our God would be a Goddess, the Great Mother figure that is creatrix and protectress.

As for growing up, Freud’s derision of child-like mythology has a point. No person in their right mind would actually believe that Jonah was swallowed whole by a whale (physically impossible), and survived to tell the tale (also physically impossible, regardless of any sort of Divine Grace). However, taking myths and legends of all sorts with a skeptical mind and perhaps more than one grain of salt more often than not leads to a deeper understanding of things, especially when myths are taken as metaphor (when appropriate, of course). By incorporating Logos into the pantheon, we can use reason to deepen our understanding of the world around us.

Freud has a point in saying that religion is a social construct. In no way did God-the-Father write, with an anthropomorphic hand, the Bible. Or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Wiccan Rede. Humans did. And humans are fallible.

But that then raises another question: Is God (or are the Gods) infallible? Is God omnipotent? Omniscient?

One Jewish feminist theologian writes that God is not omnipotent, nor even an anthropomorphic figure, but merely something that we might call Grace. To her, God was not absent during the horrors of the Holocaust, God was there in the small kindnesses between the tortured and the concentrated, and shared in the pain of that terrible era.

An interesting point, but somewhat at odds with the Pagan view of polytheism. Unlike in Christianity and other monotheistic traditions, the Gods are not infallible (in Norse mythology, two major Gods, Odin and Tyr, are not even whole), nor are they omnipotent (in Norse mythology, when Ragnarok arrives, nearly all of the Gods will be killed). Omniscience, in my mind, is impossible for any one thing to survive. A knowledge of all things at once would be enough to drive any sane person (or God) mad. And foreknowledge (which is generally included in the definition of omniscience) seems to come only with practice and skill.

So if the Gods aren’t infallible, omnipotent, or omniscient, what’s the point in believing in them?

Well, to be blunt, they may not be omnipotent, but they are far more powerful than humans. They may not be omniscient, but they are far wiser. As for infallibility? When they do make mistakes, they tend to be on the epic side, but their wisdom tempers that and they make far fewer mistakes than mere mortals.

To me, the Gods are not up in some version of heaven, or on an astral plane. But neither do they dwell on earth. Allow me to explain. In Norse mythology, the world is divided into three disks: Asgard – home of the Gods, Midgard – home to mortals and giants, and Niflheim – home of the dead. Most depictions of these indicate them spaced out and pierced by the roots of the world tree. But in some interpretations, the disks are not on top of each other, but are three disks inhabiting one space, that is, three different realities. To me, this makes sense. We can feel the Gods and our ancestors, but not see them. The three worlds are intertwined and can coexist. In some cases, they overlap. For instance, in my mind, the Gods manifest themselves most authentically in nature, and have the most power therein.

It is difficult to define the Gods. In some ways, I think Freud is half right: our anthropomorphic versions of the Gods (giving them human traits and tendencies) are a creation of our minds, but only because we cannot comprehend the powers/energies that are the Gods. In some ways, the Gods are merely Grace moving through us. In others, they are their own images, anthropomorphized by humans.

So then, why religion? Well, my answer is, predictably, because it is real. How do I know this? I just do. It is reasonable to me. I, like Freud perhaps, am an eternal skeptic. I don’t just go round believing everything I hear. I sift through leagues of bunk to find truth. Sometimes I hit the jackpot, others I hit bedrock. In true scientific form, trial and error is the name of the game.

Not satisfied? Then I ask this question of both you and Freud: If our subconscious/mind cannot be trusted to discern what is real, then how can we use our minds to determine what is rational? And how can we therefore use Reason to determine what is real?

Here’s an idea: read Freud’s Future of an Illusion and use your powers of reason (not Reason) to decide for yourself.