Saturday, August 11, 2018

Was Jung an Atheist?

Short answer: yes. Understanding religion, and believing in it, are two different things.

Jung was highly sympathetic to religion- Christianity in particular- seeking to explain its psychology and origins, and even to replicate it. There is an old joke among Jungians. A child asks her Analyst parent.. are we Christians? And the parent answers: "heavens no, we are Jungians!" While Freud was a rather vociferous atheist, Jung took a much more ambiguous, understanding approach to religion. Rather than a pack of lies, it was a truth, just not about the cosmos. What makes Jungians distinct is their respect for the power and psychology of religion, which they are generally obsessed with, and devoted to understanding. They are more anthropologists of religion than disparagers.

It is common for god and religion in general to embody the psyche of its practitioners. Even atheists take god's name in vain, to express strong emotions. Intellectuals customarily make of god whatever most interests them. Einstein and Spinoza took god to be the universe. Jung took it to be the self. While religion touches on many archetypes and psychic complexes, the nexus around which it all revolves is the self. Am I saved? Will I live ever after? Am I good? Is anyone? What is the meaning of my life? Jung took these questions to be significant and deep, not just the superficial reflections of repressed sexuality. Indeed, his view of the unconscious was much more positive than Freud's, seeing it as a fount of deep insight and healing, whose therapeutic power is not just the exposure and extinguishing of childhood traumas and instinctive conflicts. The unconscious has its own perceptual apparatus and methods of communcation (symbols, images) which can be seen as an autonomous entity within ourselves. I.e. god.

This is why symbology and ritual are so much more important in religion than is theology. All the Western attempts to rationalize the concept of god are so much wasted effort, not only because they are intellectually bankrupt due to the non-existence of the cosmic god they posit. They operate on a typically intellectual level that is totally inappropriate to the subject at hand.

An image painted by Jung, from his Red Book. The unconscious holds dark shadows as well as  compassion.

God is indeed real and an autonomous thing, at the same time it is a psychological construct, arising from our own selves and depths. The psychological concepts that Jung fostered, about an immense and fertile unconscious, which partakes not only of individual concerns, but of communal and cosmic ones, represents a significant and irreversible step in our understanding of religion and its panoply of symbols, motivations, gods, and other artistic paraphernalia.

Late in his career, Jung offered an interpretation of the evolution of Christianity, in "Answer to Job". God, as the manifestation of Israel's unconscious longings and strivings, is in the Pentateuch a thin-skinned, and fickle tyrant. He is immature, and when Job calls him to moral account for the Trumpian way he has toyed with his devoted subject, all god can do is blow up in an insulting twitter-esque rage. This exchange raises to consciousness the primitive nature of the god-concept in this culture, and rankles for several hundred years, at which point the solution becomes to make a better man of god by making him (notionally) into a real man. So, Pinocchio-like, he comes to Earth as Jesus, does good deeds, expresses some compassion, (though unimaginable ego seeps through in the commands for followership and claims of overlordship), and then ritually offers his self-sacrifice to assure us that he has really changed his ways and is now meek as a lamb.

Another self-explanatory image from the Red Book.

Obviously, this made a pretty modest impression on Jews at the time and since. But the combination of monotheism and a quasi-charitable, egalitarian form of god, leavened by Greek gnosticism and other intellectual additions, spread like wildfire through a West enervated by the relentless brutality of Roman civilization, and its fractured spiritual resources.

Many gods have come and gone, as cultures evolve and elaborate new images of themselves and their ideals. While Jung dabbled in some mysticism along the way, and was frustratingly ambiguous and unscientific in his writings on the subject, he laid what we can take as a very trenchant foundation for understanding religion as a psychological phenomenon. In this he followed the lead of William James, who recognized that it is a special area, so heavily subjective that philosophy has little hold. Like other freelance religious practitioners, Jungian analysts today split their time between writing books of uplift and psychological insight, and listening to clients bring up their difficulties, whether shallow or deep. They provide spiritual solace to the lost, while trying to heal the larger culture by bringing to consciousness the powers, compassion, and insight that lie within.

  • The planet is burning.
  • Workers, citizens, unite!
  • An emotion in every chord.
  • How China beat the recession- classic Keynes.
  • What makes unemployed farmers so much better than other unemployed people?
  • And why is the Labor party giving up on labor?
  • Resignation- an excellent precedent!
  • A difference between just desserts and business models.

3 comments:

Emerald Wilkins said...

I think many of your points are right on the nose. But Jung was not an Atheist in any regard. In fact, in one interview he said he "knew" God exists. But it's true that he didn't necessarily believe in the tangible existence of the God images that people in various cultures through the ages have come up with. He had an awareness that the God images were the result of archetypes of the mind, that are shared across cultures but appear in different forms because of environment and societal norms. But the basic template is the same. Have you read "The Red Book?" It's really great.

Anonymous said...

An incorrect deduction, confused and contradictory. Jung was NOT an atheist he described himself as an agnostic empirical scientist on matters of God (along with other descriptors)

Winston Smith said...

"All the Western attempts to rationalize the concept of god are so much wasted effort, not only because they are intellectually bankrupt due to the non-existence of the cosmic god they posit. They operate on a typically intellectual level that is totally inappropriate to the subject at hand."

How do you know that such a being does not exist? What sort of proof do you expect? Surely you wouldn't look for an empirical proof of a metaphysical being - that would be stupid, yet that is what most people go about proving the existence of God. Not everything is proven the same way (e.g. you don't prove a mathematical problem using the scientific method).

All things considered, the world we live in assumes an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent personal God to ground and justify everything in existence. Otherwise there is no justification for meaning, the universals, causality, induction etc. This line of argumentation is called TAG (Transcendental Argument for the existence of God).

Jung may be a groundbreaking psychologist but he definitely wasn't a philosopher and it shows in his position towards metaphysical, epistemological and ethical problems. Ironically, the author himself exhibits the same lack of knowledge of basic theological and philosophical positions claiming the philosophers of the middle ages basically wasted their time fleshing out the nature of God and the universe.