I have tried to show so far that only if we differentiate between authoritarian and humanistic religion and between "adjustment counseling" and "cure of the soul" can we try to answer this question. But so far I have neglected to discuss various aspects of religion which must be differentiated from each other in order to determine which are threatened by psychoanalysis and other factors in modern culture and which are not. The particular aspects I wish to discuss from this standpoint are the experiential aspect, the scientific-magical aspect, the ritualistic aspect, the semantic aspect.
By experiential aspect I mean religious feeling and devotion. The attitude common to the teachings of the founders of all great Eastern and Western religions is one in which the supreme aim of living is a concern with man's soul and the unfolding of his powers of love and reason. Psychoanalysis, far from being a threat to this aim, can on the contrary contribute a great deal to its realization. Nor can this aspect be threatened by any other science. It is not conceivable that any discovery made by the natural sciences could become a threat to religious feeling. On the contrary, an increased awareness of the nature of the universe in which we live can only help man to become more self-reliant and more humble. As for the social sciences, their growing understanding of man's nature and of the laws governing his existence contributes to the development of a religious attitude rather than threatens it.
Sign in to unlock this title
Sign in to continue reading, it's free! As an unregistered user you can only read a little bit.
