Has anyone read Freud's "Future of an Illusion?" I'd like to discuss it here if someone has. It is his critique of religion. If no one has read it, I can give a synopsis...

better yet there should be a version online somewhere, how about a link ;)

I know nothing of this subject, but I would love to learn.

Here's a link to the Text, but it's not organized well. Feel free to read it over nonetheless.

Alright, I looked it over.

Why don't you just give a summery of it.

One sentence summary: Religion is humankind's neurosis.

Rather than attack the substance of religion, Freud calls into question the motives for religious belief in "Future of an Illusion." It's not a direct attack on the actual belief that God exists. Rather, it's a commentary on the nature of religious belief and religious believers. Freud finds the motive of religious belief suspicious. Why do people believe? What are they believing for? Is religious belief an emotional palliative for the anxiety that death produces? Is this why God provides the two-pronged cure against that anxiety (1. strict guidelines so that you don't have to decide for yourself how you should live and 2. the promise of evelasting life--something to look forward to if you're living a mucky life)?

I would say thats about right.

Haha, but no, really, I do have to give some credit to Freud's "Illusion", Marx's "Opiate", and Netizche's "Slave Mentality". For someone who doesn't believe and sees no evidence as to why one would truly do so, it honestly does appear to be so.

One thing about Future of an Illusion is that Freud turns "logic" into a sort of God of his own. In fact, it seems that for Freud, positivism serves as the same ideological blanky that we cling onto in order to make sense of a rather chaotic and threatening existence.

I read a portion of it for my Philosophy class. I honestly can't say I have much respect for Freud at all. There is a desire amongst anti-religious folk to develop a monistic theory that explains away all religious belief. The simple fact is that such a critique does not address religion itself, opting rather to attack those who profess religious belief. I don't think it's a fair attack, either, and if it is I don't see why Freud (or anyone else, for that matter) can claim motives any more noble in his lack of belief in a God. It's easy to make cynical claims as to why most anyone believes most anything, really.

It does critique religion, albeit not the content of religious belief. Freud acknowledges this.

What do you think is unfair about it?

I think the motives for belief are incredibly important in evaluating a phenomenon as widespread and as ingrained in culture as religion.

He doesn't quite claim his motives are more noble. In fact he admits that his dream of having people overcome the illusions of religious belief and turn themselves to rationality could itself be an illusion. Here's the difference, he says:

I suggest you read the whole thing to get the full effect.