Anyone plan on watching this two-part series? It will air on September 15 and 22, successive Wednesdays. It's based on Harvard psychiatry professor Armand Nicholi’s course comparison of the theories and biographies of Sigmund Freud, a self-proclaimed 'godless Jew', and C. S. Lewis, Christian apologist, which he has been teaching for over twenty-five years, and on the book he wrote, also called 'The Question of God'.
Posts: 6554 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
There were a few words about the September 15 part in TV Guide, which gave it a "5." So although I have to watch it due to my having a prophecy website, I suspect that it will be the usual intellectualized babble vs. religious fantasia. Gee, we can get this right here over and over and over and. . . . +++++++++++++++++++++++ 09-15-04, 09:38 AM newnickname It seems to be an odd choice of opponents. You don't have to be a Christian to recognise Lewis' ability to write reasonably, clearly and persuasively. You don't have to be a Christian, either, to recognise that Freud's work was flawed, subjective and unscientific. In fact, apart from his Big Idea that we have subconscious motivations, Freud is pretty much discounted these days (outside North America, or at least outside episodes of 'Frasier').
It sounds like a rigged match...
09-15-04, 11:07 AM babthrower Tsaeb has a point. Still, I'll probably watch it. I surely wouldn't pick Freud as the spokesperson for the 'scientific' viewpoint -- and that, according to the promo blurb, is what he has been selected to do. Freud was an atheist, but not a scientist. True, he did have test subjects - patients - but when he found that claims of sex abuse by fathers were common (not in the general public, but among his patients, I mean), (and he had believed the first ones he heard), he decided the evidence could not be reliable, because sex abuse of children could not be that common. So he came up with the theory of the sexual fantasy the child has for the parent of the opposite sex, and called it the Oedipus complex -- which was a misnomer. Oedipus did not know that the lady was his mother -- he had not been raised by his parents.
Incidentally, this theory enabled him to continue to take payment from the fathers for the treatment of their neurotic children. Incidentally.
09-16-04, 12:30 AM tsaeb I did notice that there is an ongoing discussion on various topics of interest on pbs.org.
Well, dang, I missed it. People came round to dinner, and (apparently) it's Not Nice to slope off and watch TV when this happens.
Was it as skewed towards the US assumption that everyone is (or wants to be) Christian as the article linked to above makes out?
"I encourage students to understand the worldview they do not embrace. Although at first they find that unsettling, ultimately it will have a strengthening effect if they can confront the arguments and work through them. It may create doubt, but doubt is a part of belief."
In the PBS pages tsaeb points to, there's this quote - highlighted in a sidebar - "In the 20th century, Freud is the atheist's touchstone" Words fail me. That's just wrong.
09-16-04, 12:10 PM babthrower Well, I did watch about 3/4 of it. I learned two things I hadn't known before. These things are based on autobiographical statements made by Lewis and Freud.
1. It is often said that Lewis had been an atheist. Not true. He was at public school and university when it was fashionable to be atheistic, and he just faked it. His own words prove this. He says he was 'angry with god' for not existing. He also said he was angry with god for creating people, since there was 'no point' to it. Being an atheist is not just saying to one's friends 'I don't believe in god.' Being an atheist is accepting the world-view that there is no father- or mother- figure to whom one can take one's troubles. And more. There is no one to be angry with.
2. Freud is a bit more sympathetic than I described above -- sorry, Siggy. It seems the model of the unconscious and the repression of sexual urges and the notion of sexual attraction toward the parent preceded (or at least prepared the way for) his dismissal of sexual abuse by the parent as a cause for neurosis in his patients.
I agree with nnn. Freud isn't, and never was, the icon of the atheist. Although I can see reasons why theists would have it so.
09-17-04, 04:10 PM Mike121 First off, thanks to Bab for bringing the show to our attention (yes, I’ve been lurking). I was too busy to watch the thing but managed to tape it and have seen about half of it in bits since then. I particularly liked the ‘round table’ discussion segments – reminded me of our discussions here and elsewhere in the net.
Like Newnick I immediately wondered “why Freud?” From what I’ve seen of the show it seems Nicholi chose Freud for a couple of reasons; the brand of argument he articulated against theism and his ‘pop culture’ popularity with the intelligentsia and bourgeoisie of the time.
“Religion is a 'universal obsessional ritual'” “Religion is an attempt to master the Oedipus complex.” “Religion is the return of the repressed.” “Religion is a reaction to infantile helplessness." “Religion echoes infantile states of 'bliss'.” “Religion is a mass delusion or paranoid wish-fulfilment.” “Religion is a way to hold groups together.”
You gotta admit, the last two have stood the test of time. These arguments are still used.
I’m not defending Nicholi’s choice of Freud. Just trying to make sense of it.
Of course Lewis won hands down. Everyone knows theists are smarter than atheists. Wink
09-17-04, 04:44 PM juanruiz I wonder what the results would have been had he chosen Carl Sagan instead of Freud.
09-17-04, 07:10 PM babthrower Mike121 says:
"Everyone knows theists are smarter than atheists."
Ohhh, that really smarts!
Frown
Personally I think that religion is the product of evolution, and not a psychosis at all. I think when people got smart enough to realize death was inevitable, lots of them lost heart during the trials and hardships of their lives.
Think of it. The teen is indestructible, in his/her own view. But after producing a few offspring, which by age about seven years can survive in a group, and after (the parents) have experienced some of the nasties of stone age life, broken limbs, abcessed teeth, the first thrill of procreation has passed, and the tribe is calling on you yet again to hunt the dangerous buffalo, and your leg not yet healed from the last hunt; or go out into the blizzard and collect firewood? Why not just stay out there, and go to sleep?
But not all felt like that. Some, who saw a different 'reality' which helped them get beyond the pain and despair, had an edge. Those were the survivors: they simply outbred the others, because they endured long enough to raise more offspring and care for their grandchildren, too. They learned to value suffering for its own sake, and that helped them endure. It is only now when life is quite comfortable for most of us that we can afford atheism. You will notice that religion is stronger among the poorest peoples.
Now we are a mix. Some day they'll find the religion gene.
09-21-04, 01:48 PM Mike121
quote:Originally posted by juanruiz: I wonder what the results would have been had he chosen Carl Sagan instead of Freud.
"Billions and billions" of reasons why God does not exist? Wink
09-21-04, 03:49 PM babthrower On the general topic of god and science, I'm reminded of this rating of god as a scientist posted some time ago by Sage:
1.He had only one major publication. 2.It was in Hebrew. 3.It had no references. 4.It wasn't published in a refereed journal. 5.Some even doubt he wrote it by himself. 6.It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then? 7.His cooperative efforts have been quite limited. 8.The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results. 9.He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects. 10.When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects. 11.When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample. 12.He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book. 13.Some say he had his son teach the class. 14.He expelled his first two students for learning. 15.Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his tests. 16.His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top. 17.No record of working well with colleagues.
09-22-04, 01:52 AM tsaeb Reminder: it is already time for Part 2.
09-23-04, 01:18 AM babthrower Just finished watching part II. They touched on the important bits: If god exists, is he/she /it good? Do we survive death, and if so, is that good news? And so on.
It occurred to me that the awe and reverence that some theists feel and that they seem to feel that only the concept of god can adequately justify, is something which I at times feel about:
-- the universe: the billions and billions -- the mere fact that anything exists: why should it?
It's just that I don't personify it. I don't imagine that it cares about my fidelity, or lack thereof, to my legal spouse; I don't imagine that it is unhappy if I do not worship it. It is quite independent of me, and of the entire human species, and that is one reason why it is so magnificent.
Now I'm off to the lovely island from which my ancestors emigrated in 1789. I will live in a stone hut, much like what they lived in, except that I can use the output from a generator to cook my breakfast, and they would have thought such a system must be the product of witchcraft.
I will meet two email buddies whom I met on Jeeves and/or Answerpool. One is an atheist, one is a Christian. Both are marwellous people.
It's a wonderful world.
09-23-04, 06:44 PM doñadiana Have a good trip. It sounds like great fun. Wish I was one of those friends you will be getting together with. What island are you going to?
DD
10-17-04, 08:38 PM babthrower Sorry, DD, I haven't been on the internet. But I posted some photos in
Travel Polls
Why don't you check 'em out?
Then I'll tell you about:
babthrower's excellent adventure.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
