It is a very common misconception that to have a relationship with god means to be very religious. While religion does help humans get closer to god, each of us is a masterpiece of god’s creation and we do not solely need religion to become close with him. Before we can understand what these relationships with god are, we need to first understand what it means to be human. Two profound authors that have touched on this topic with some very bright insight include Sigmund Freud in his work, “Civilization and its discontents”, and Fyodor Dostoevsky with “The Brothers Karamazov”. These two works both tie in certain mysteries of religion with some mysteries of human existence directly relating them to one of our CIT questions, what does it mean to be human and what is my relationship with god? Thanks to the copious amount of the authors opinion in each text, we can explore two viewpoints on these topics.
Civilization and Its Discontents, opens with describing Freud’s inability to understand a certain “oceanic feeling”. Freud had some close friends who were very religious, however, he himself does not fall into that category. He considers himself pro religion and understands how powerful religion is in societies. Society and Civilization in his mind play a big role in how individual’s act. To avoid ruining relationships with friends, family, and loved ones, he believes the individual must act according to certain strictures and rules. Living in a society requires a decent amount of conformity from its citizens which ultimately goes against the pleasure rule that Freud states is what mankind aims for. However, these societies aren’t as strict and unhappy as Freud made them seem in the first few chapters. He goes on to look at a different aspect of society. He defines civilization “as the whole sum of human achievements and regulations intended to protect men against nature and "adjust their mutual relations." In other words, this is saying that all the advancements that humans have made through inventions and theories all combine together into the work of mankind. These advancements give man such a high form of power that was believed only gods could hold. Freud states, “Man has, as it were, become a kind of prosthetic god”, which is relating mankind to an artificial god form. This quote by Freud gives some insight into the first part of the CIT question, “what does it mean to be human”. There are many ways to answer this question, Freud goes about it by connecting “humanity” to “society”. In other words, to be human is to relate and interact with everyone else around us. To be responsible for ourselves and one another. Which is the ultimate reason we have come so far advancing from where we started. Freud isn’t saying an individual in particular is similar to an artificial god. He is saying mankind as a whole, that when a society comes together and works together, that’s when we hold the same power that god holds.
Freud has a certain flow to his essay. He makes it so he flows fluently from one topic to the next. In this instance, he uses the previous quote stated afore to transition into religion. Freud talks from the perspective of an atheist, but still holds the knowledge of someone who is quite religious. He makes a very good point regarding human’s relationship to religion. Freud states, “Religion is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that it is painful for someone with a “friendly attitude towards humanity” to think most people accept it”. This is a very repressive thing to think, however, bare in mind it is coming from an atheist. This quote seems very confusing at first, but in a simpler sense, Freud is saying that anyone with any basic knowledge about humans, they would know that not everyone is religious. I like this way about thinking of a relationship with god. For me, I am a religious person, and it always seems like to me everyone is religious and that’s how they hold a relationship with god as a human. So Freud’s statement is aimed at people like me, telling us that not everyone has to accept religion, and there are alternative ways to have a relationship with an overarching god. I think that comes with a lot of respect towards one another in a community. We can’t assume everyone’s relationship with their god is just through religion. We have to respect their thoughts and beliefs.
Another famous another that touches upon these subjects stated in the CIT question is Fyodor Dostoevsky with “The Brothers Karamazov”. Dostoevsky is from around the same time period as Freud and questions a lot of the same things in his writings. In chapter 4: Rebellion, from The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky begin to question God’s existence and the immortality of the soul. One of the brothers, Ivan, says that he has never rejected God in his life. However, at the same time he feels that he is unable to accept God and everything that comes with him. They go on to discuss human existence because that is something that god created. Ivan comes off as quite troubled on the topic of human interaction and loving one another. Relative to this passage, Dostoevsky states, “The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for”. I really like this quote and this is something that I’ve been telling myself my whole life. It can be taken a few ways, but in the end its saying find something or someone to give yourself passion to keep going in life. I think this fits really well in their discussion of human existence and what it means to be human. Like Freud, in saying that being human is interacting and relating to others around you. Dostoevsky is saying that if you find someone around you that is worth living for, it will make you feel much more alive and connected with the environment around you. There are always small things in life that give you pleasure, but being human are finding those bigger things, whether human or inanimate, these are what truly get you through life. From here the two brothers go on to discuss “happiness” and if that’s something everyone deserves or is something that humans get from god. Ivan seems to think that the world God provided for us gives us the opposite of happiness. He presents his brother with the the question, how such a “loving” God would be okay with humanity suffering from misery. Why would anyone have to live a miserable life under this loving overarching god questions Ivan. The counter argument brought up, stated by Dostoevsky, “In the realist, faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith. Once the realist comes to believe, then precisely because of his faith, he must allow for miracles”. This is a very insightful, yes quite bold statement from the author. He is saying that people who do not have faith have no room for miracles in their lives, causing them to experience suffering. However, once they come to believe in a faith, then they open up their lives to these wonderful opportunity’s allowing for happiness. Freud’s take on our relationship to god was a little more open saying that everyone has this relationship, but it doesn’t strictly have to be faith. While on the other hand Dostoevsky is inquiring that you almost need faith to live a happy life. Without faith, he is saying you are cutting any room for miracles out of your life. Which seems like his way of saying, that without faith you suffer. Very bold statement, but in a way I do agree with him. When most people are hoping for miracles, what they are really doing, is praying for them. Almost 100% of the time, praying is tied to your religion, it is very difficult to pray for something without faith.
Having a relationship with god is a very important part of being a human on this planet. It is not only where we all came from, but it is what gets most people through life. However, without knowing what it truly means to be human, it is difficult to have a relationship with god. Sigmund Freud and Fyodor Dostoevsky both share insight to the CIT question, what does it mean to be human and what is my relationship with god? Freud and Dostoevsky both profound authors touched upon all the questions relating to human existence. While both of them have slightly different mindsets, it is very informative to hear from both sides. In the end both authors conclude how important it is to have a relationship with god, the creator of life. As well as how important it is to understand what being a human, and part of a community truly is.