Sigmund Freud’s Psychology of Religion — Applications to Religious Scrupulosity
Even in 2022, if you were to ask the average Westerner what name comes to mind when you say the word psychology, they would answer Sigmund Freud. Indeed, Freud’s impact on the field of psychology and to Western thought, in general, cannot be understated.
Freud was a neurologist who lived from 1859 to 1939 and developed a clinical practice for treating psychological challenges that he called psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis, as the name suggests, is an analysis of an individual’s psychic processes. It was really the first form of talk therapy, and it was based on Freud’s belief that psychological distress could be alleviated by bringing unconscious psychological material into consciousness so that it can be integrated into a more mature psychological state.
Freud’s original framework for psychoanalysis involved months, even years of discussion with the client. During the sessions, the client would lay down on the quintessential therapist’s couch with their back to Freud and talk about whatever came to their mind, a process that Freud called “free association”.
When it comes to the psychology of religion, Freud is a significant historical character. It has been said that Freud’s theories are the first of their kind; a divergence from religious explanations of the human mind. He was really the first to provide a robust framework for human thought that did not include theological concepts like the immortal soul, spirit, angels, demons, and a mind-reading by an all-knowing all-powerful father figure God. Freud wrote three books about the psychology of religion, Totem and Taboo (1913), The Future of an Illusion (1927), and Moses and Monotheism (1937).
In recent years, Freud’s theories and psychoanalysis in general as a clinical practice have fallen out of fashion. Some therapists still practice psychoanalysis today, but the evidence base for this practice is not as deep as with more modern therapeutic modalities. That’s not to say that psychoanalysis doesn’t work, just that the research backing it is not as robust.
One issue with Freud’s work is that he assertively states that his theory of the human mind is scientific. He talks about the evolution of human thinking, as if it progressed from animism to monotheistic religion and finally to a more scientific approach. But Freud’s basis for stating that his approach is scientific rests on his years of n=1 experience and psychoanalysis. He speaks as if his cumulative experience in the therapy room constitutes evidence for his theories, throwing out the possibility of his own confirmation bias and subjectivity.
Totem & Taboo by Sigmund Freud
That being said, one cannot be unimpressed with Freud’s cocksureness as displayed in Totem and Taboo. There’s no doubt that Freud spent a lot of time thinking about thinking and he holds himself and others to ruthlessly honest self-evaluation. Freud is unafraid to highlight and analyze all of the unseemly elements of the human psyche: the violent, the sexual, and the immature. It is obvious from his writing that he has bravely reckoned with these socially unacceptable impulses in himself and can subsequently see them with clarity in others.
Despite his appeal to dark psychology, Freud’s confidence is refreshing. He’s pejorative in the way he speaks of individuals who suffer, calling them mentally ill (a phrase I prefer to avoid) and worse yet, referring to them as “neurotics”. This is the sort of language that is avoided nowadays in the field of mental health. We don’t call people schizophrenics or depressives, etc.
But Freud’s arrogance comes with dogged optimism. Freud is of the opinion (and he was the first one to boldly say so) that by simply talking with an individual they can recover from depression, compulsion, anxiety, and obsession. In Totem and Taboo, Freud even cites another author who was “a highly intelligent man, a former suffer from compulsion neurosis who, after being cured through psychoanalytic treatment, was able to demonstrate his efficiency and good sense” (Freud, 1913).
According to Freud, an adamant atheist, part of the infantile fantasy that contributes to less than optimal mental states is religion.
Before we move on to the two main themes of the book that I found most insightful, let’s address a term that Freud frequently uses “compulsion neurosis” (Freud, 1913).
“Compulsive neurosis” would include any mental disorder with anxiety at its root — depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and any other condition resulting from an insecurity that is projected on self or others by way of maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. What Freud calls “compulsion neurosis”, though, is not a very nuanced term and it covers a lot of territory. But it was the focus of his work with psychoanalysis. In Totem and Taboo, Freud identifies two psychological occurrences related to religious thinking that have implications for mental well-being:
- The ambivalence of emotion
- The omnipotence of thought.
The Ambivalence of Emotion
Let’s start with Chapter 2 of Totem and Taboo called “Taboo and the Ambivalence of Emotion”.
By the way, you’ll notice that in this article, I’ve deliberately skirted the actual topic matter of this small book; the spiritual practices of totemism and taboo prohibitions in primitive cultures. But briefly, for the sake of understanding the intersection of religion and the ambivalence of human emotion, totemism was a form of primitive religion that centered spiritual, cultural, and sociological infrastructures around totem animals. Taboo refers to the people, places and things that these communities considered to be untouchable because they were dangerous, either because they were associated with wicked spirits or because of their jealous punitive power.
Relevant to this discussion is what Freud says about the use of sacred objects and ideas to placate our inherently ambivalent human emotion. He talks about the possible double meaning in the original word for taboo. He says this
“The double meaning and question belong to the word taboo from the very beginning and it serves to designate a definite ambivalence as well as everything which has come into existence on the basis of this ambivalence. Taboo is itself an ambivalent word. The taboo prohibition is to be explained as a result of an emotional ambivalence” (Freud, 1913)
Freud goes on to explain that the very necessity of a command to abstain from something is evidence of this inherent human emotional ambivalence. He says:
“If taboo expresses itself mainly in prohibition, it may well be considered self-evident that it is based on a positive desire-full impulse. For what nobody desires to do does not have to be forbidden. And certainly whatever is expressly forbidden must be an object of desire. And if we should apply the same theory to those cases in which we ourselves hear the voice of conscience most clearly, we would arouse the greatest contradiction. For there we would assert with the most utmost certainty that we did not feel the slightest temptation to violate any of these commandments, as for example the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, and that we felt nothing but repugnance at the idea” (Freud, 1913).
What Freud is saying here is that behind every prohibition is a desire. If there weren’t, why would there need to be a prohibition in the first place? If nobody was ever motivated to do this deed, why would a prohibition against it need to exist?
Freud then goes on to talk about what he has learned from performing psychoanalysis:
“If we take into account the following results of psychoanalysis, our understanding of the problem is greatly advanced. The analysis of dreams of normal individuals has shown that our temptation to kill others is stronger and more frequent than we had suspected and that it produces psychic effects even where it does not reveal itself to our consciousness. And when we have learned that the obsessive rules of certain neurotics are nothing but measures of self-reassurance and self-punishment erected against the reinforced impulse to commit murder, we can return with fresh appreciation to our previous hypothesis that every prohibition must conceal a desire” (Freud, 1913).
According to Freud, when faced with ambiguity on how to act because of the ambivalence of emotion, primitive religion provided a set of taboos to help settle the psychological discomfort. This was then carried forth into monotheistic religion with its accompanying moral precepts. Even today when faced with ambivalence and socially unacceptable desires, many individuals revert to a religiously prescribed taboo as a touchpoint to settle their ambivalence.
This is familiar in many religious traditions. In moments of great ambivalence, we are taught to seek God for an answer. When I was part of a high-demand religious group, we were provided a database of everything that the organization had ever published. When members face challenging life decisions, they can simply use the search feature to find a number of articles that show the appropriate course of action. Very rarely is one unable to find an article that addresses the specific circumstance exactly.
Freud’s discussion also made me think about religious icons in broader religion. For example, why do we hang across around our rearview mirror or place a figure of Ganesha on our dashboard? Perhaps it’s pure superstition, to avoid a car crash. It could be tribalism, to let other people know where you stand on matters of religion. Or it could be an outward display of piety that signals to others that you are a good person. But for many, it no doubt serves as a reminder when faced with moments of emotional ambivalence. When we are (to use a religious expression) tempted or faced with indecision, we look to our totem to settle the ambiguity. The icon reminds us of the taboos associated with our religious tradition and we know what to do.
Freud goes on to talk about how this style of thinking can result in anxiety if a taboo is transgressed:
“It is therefore probable that conscience also originates on the basis of an ambivalent feeling from quite definite human relations which contain this ambivalence. One component of the two contrasting feelings is unconscious and is kept repressed by the compulsive domination of the other component. The character of compulsion neurotics shows a predominant trait of painful conscientiousness, which is a symptom of reaction against the temptation which lurks in the unconscious and which develops into the highest degrees of guilty consciences as their illness grows worse” (Freud, 1913).
So when someone represses their unconscious desire to violate a taboo, they experience a high degree of guilty conscience and anxiety that, left unchecked, can lead to any one of the conditions that Freud refers to as compulsion neurosis.
The Omnipotence of Thought
The omnipotence of thought is a phrase that Freud admits to taking from another author. He says this:
“The existence of omnipotence of thought is most clearly seen in compulsion neurosis. In every one of the neuroses, it is not the reality of the experience but the reality of the thought which forms the basis for the symptom formation. Neurotics live in a special world in which, as I have elsewhere expressed it, only the neurotic standard of currency counts. That is to say, only things intensively thought of or effectively conceived are effective with them regardless of whether these things are in harmony with outward reality.
A compulsion erotic may be oppressed by a sense of guilt which is appropriate to a wholesale murderer while at the same time he acts towards his fellow beings in a most considerate and scrupulous manner of behavior which he evinced since childhood. And yet his sense of guilt is justified. It is based upon intensive and frequent death wishes which unconsciously manifest themselves towards his fellow beings. It is motivated from the point of view of unconscious thoughts, not of intentional acts. Thus, the omnipotence of thought, the overestimation of psychic processes as opposed to reality proves to be of unlimited effect in a neurotics effective life and in all that emanates from it” (Freud, 1913).
No doubt, Freud’s language here is condescending. In the same paragraph, he compares compulsion neurotics to the “savages” of “primitive cultures”. But he does touch on the experience of many religionists; that they feel intense anxiety and guilt over transgressions that never manifest in reality. In another place in the book, Freud puts it this way:
“When we examine these neurotics for the deeds which have called for such reactions, we are disappointed. We do not find deeds, but only impulses and feelings which sought evil but which were restrained from carrying it out. Only psychic realities and not actual ones are the basis of the neurotic’s sense of guilt. It is characteristic of the neurosis to put a psychic reality above an actual one and to react as seriously to thoughts as a normal person reacts only toward realities” (Freud, 1913).
This very real predicament, which is often enmeshed in a religious worldview, can most certainly make its way to a therapist's office.
What Freud is talking about here is what is referred to by the American Psychological Association (APA) as scrupulosity. Scrupulosity is defined as “over conscientiousness with respect to matters of right and wrong, often manifested as an obsession with moral or religious issues that results in compulsive moral or religious observance and that is highly distressing. (APA, 2020).
Scrupulosity is a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Classically, when we think of OCD, we think of an individual that is so terrified of being dirty that they compulsively wash their hands over and over again. With scrupulosity, the compulsive action is a religious one, perhaps some right or ritual that is performed in a compulsive manner every time a thought enters consciousness that transgresses the taboo of the religion. But as Freud highlights in his theory of the omnipotence of thought, scrupulosity can manifest itself even without observable behaviors, which I think is something missing from the above APA definition.
Freud’s comments about the omnipotence of thought speak directly to my experience with mental illness coming out of a high-demand religious group. Passages from the Holy Scriptures codify the omnipotence of thought. For example, in Jesus’ famous sermon on the Mount of Matthew chapter five:
“You heard that it was said to those of ancient times “you must not murder”. However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice…you heard that it was said “you must not commit adultery”. But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Watch Tower, 2013).
Then there’s 2 Corinthians 10:5 with the injunction to “bring every thought into captivity, to make it obedient to the Christ” (Watch Tower, 2013). Again, these verses bring the thought to the level of the action. They vilify the mind for socially repressed desires and create a world wherein an individual is constantly monitored by God not for behaviors, but for thoughts.
In my religious upbringing, we were taught that God examines not only the mind but the very kidneys, the seat of all motivation. While in the APA’s definition of scrupulosity the placation of this fear of being judged by God for unwanted thoughts is done with actions, for some this compulsive placating takes place only in the mind. For example, in my religious upbringing, we were taught that God examines not only the mind but the very kidneys, the seat of all motivation. We often discussed the story of Nehemiah, who, when confronted by the king of Persia, prayed immediately to his God. There was no necessary convention or posture for his prayer. Rather, we were told, an immediate prayer can be offered in any time of temptation to offend God.
Personal Experience with Religious Scrupulosity
This is the kind of compulsive thinking that I talk about in my book, one that befell me and led me to mental health crisis. It went something like this:
First, an unwanted thought would appear in consciousness, perhaps one of repressed doubt. This would be followed by earnest prayer for forgiveness and strength, followed by the appearance of the apostate thought again which would bring guilt over being faithless and lead to another compulsive and desperate prayer for more faith. This cycle of compulsive thought would continue relentlessly, leaving very little room for any other constructive or creative problem solving, eventually leading me directly to the door of the psychiatrist's office.
Only after learning about mindfulness, after months of psychotherapy, and after eventually rejecting my fantastical religious worldview was I able to release myself from this compulsion neurosis. I recognize that the severity of my symptoms may be rooted in a biological predilection to a particular way of thinking. That is to say, we all find ourselves at a different place on the scale of that personality dimension that we call neuroticism. But I think that this omnipotence of thought and the favoring of a hoped-for narrative over testable reality is what causes many non-believers to criticize religion. The intertwining of taboo prohibitions with the motivating power of hope is an unfortunate side effect of many Western religions. A side effect that may result in negative clinical outcomes.
(This article is a repost from wallisbooks.com. If you enjoy my work and would like to support me, buy me a cup of coffee!)
References:
Freud, S. (1955). Totem and taboo: Some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics (1913 [1912–13]). In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIII (1913–1914): Totem and Taboo and Other Works (pp. VII-162).
American Psychological Association (2020) APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retreived from: https://dictionary.apa.org
