Are the religous getting the shaft? The problem with logic.

[Kscott]

Let me start with a brief history of myself. I grew up a liberal protestant and sometime last year I realized that Christianity was probably not true. So I did some soul searching and went from pantheism to Buddhism to weak atheism and now completely undecided.

Just the other day I was feeling rather down and trying to figure out the meaning of life. It seems the more knowledge I gain the more I gain a nihilistic outlook on thing. Morality and purpose are just such terrible complicated concepts that I can't help but feel insignificant. I however refuse to accept a place of insignificance.

So I remembered from my Presbyterian days "What is the chief end of man?". It was the perfect articulation of my feelings. WHAT IS IT! I felt so lost. As this internal struggle was raging I walked into my room. There on the floor I found my old Presbyterian history book and opened to a random page. This first thing I read was an excerpt about the shorter catechism that said
Q :What is the chief end of man?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Now I am not the type of person to usually buy into this type of thing, nor do I expect anyone here to, but I couldn't help but to feel amazed. This did not convert me back to Christianity, but it did make a point that I would like to share here.

In religous debates on this forum and others the religous always seem to loose. Others may not agree, but objective evidence seems to weigh far heavier for the skeptics. It just seems so irrational to believe in a higher power, none the less a specific religion. But these debates seem to be missing a pivotal part of the human existence, emotions. We are not objective machines and I really don't think many would want to be. We are 'blinded' by our own personal perceptions and experiences. Yet while these things 'blind' us from objective 'truth' they are the very key of what makes us human.

Surely it is wrong to ignore subjective experience? My experience with the book was very likely due to chance however something in my heart tells me it was not. I feel there MUST be some kind of higher power. I really don't know what form it takes, but I just feel it must be there in some way. I understand this is not a logical conclusion and it would be very easy to show me how I am being illogical. This is why atheism seems so much more popular on the forums than it does in 'real' life. In real life things are based much more on emotion. It is simply human nature.

So my question is this. At what point do we deny logic and follow our hearts. We separate them, but in the end they both originate in our minds. It is hard for me to place faith in human logic when we are so limited in our perceptions compared to what there is overall to perceive.

Anyways just some food for thought. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything as I am not very sure of anyone this myself. Just thought this would be a nice break from the typical black and white debates.

[Boyar Son]

Some would choose faith because of repercussions if they dont believe. And the rest beleive in a higher good. But at what point do we abondon logic? most of us just puts it on temporary pause when we think about religion.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I had the same problems too. But the question is, how much do you allow emotion to rule you?

Man is not a naturally rational animal. It is an irrational one. While this might seem too cold, a man likes to serve a leader, and to fell safe under strong and assured leadership. God often assumes the role of the leader in Western cultures.

Reminds me of my favourite novelist, Tolstoy, who had the same questions as you have now, probably. He ended up as a moderate Christian anarchist, or so, basically because he viewed human beings as irrational beings primarily.

While in the rational plan God is illogical and improbable, in the emotional plan, people often rely on their faith, expectations, and wishes to keep themselves alive. Sometimes it's hard to be all cold, impartial and rational, your personal emotion often desires for things that can be absurd when taken in other context, speaking in a broader sense.

While to me it seems more emotionally pleasing to be safe under some kind of deity, entity or spirituality, and I've tried this, inevitably I always end with ambiguity, for I'm very ambivalent, personally, when it comes to this. I just can't hope to believe I'm being guided, even though sometimes I wish I could be guided.

[Kscott]

I had the same problems too. But the question is, how much do you allow emotion to rule you?

Indeed. I certainly can understand why many are led to atheism, but I simply cannot ignore my emotions. The problem though is that I also pride myself in being a rational thinker. Thus the confusion. Ultimately though as you said, it is simply easier for me to believe there has to be something higher.

Perhaps that is weak, but it simply seems to be an intricate part of who I am. Who mankind is. When I view debates I always side with the atheists because debates are based on logic and their logic certainly wins out.

I just feel that this viewpoint is missing something though. Something that people on the streets see. Something that has led man to religion since the begging of time. Obviously fear plays a role, insecurity, but also awe.

I was awed to turn to the page that contained the exact answer I was looking for. I was awed the first time I ever saw a mountain. I am continually awed when I embrace my love. I am awed by my elders who have such keep their faith with such dignity and will. Life is one big wonder after the other. It seems rather optimistic to assume this means after death we get to walk on golden streets, but all this awe seems to point to something. What exactly this is I am not sure, but surely something. This key aspect is completely ignored in all the religous debates.

I however completely understand your ambivalence. It is very hard to distinguish if all this emotion is merely wishful thinking. Logically certainly tells me so.

Anyways thank you for the response. I should probably read War & Peace, but the size is simply too daunting.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Indeed. I certainly can understand why many are led to atheism, but I simply cannot ignore my emotions. The problem though is that I also pride myself in being a rational thinker. Thus the confusion. Ultimately though as you said, it is simply easier for me to believe there has to be something higher.

Perhaps that is weak, but it simply seems to be an intricate part of who I am. Who mankind is. When I view debates I always side with the atheists because debates are based on logic and their logic certainly wins out.

I just feel that this viewpoint is missing something though. Something that people on the streets see. Something that has led man to religion since the begging of time. Obviously fear plays a role, insecurity, but also awe.

I was awed to turn to the page that contained the exact answer I was looking for. I was awed the first time I ever saw a mountain. I am continually awed when I embrace my love. I am awed by my elders who have such keep their faith with such dignity and will. Life is one big wonder after the other. It seems rather optimistic to assume this means after death we get to walk on golden streets, but all this awe seems to point to something. What exactly this is I am not sure, but surely something. This key aspect is completely ignored in all the religous debates.

I however completely ambivalence. It is very hard to distinguish if all this emotion is merely wishful thinking. Logically certainly tells me so.

Anyways thank you for the response. I should probably read War & Peace, but the size is simply too daunting.

Then watch the movie, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk. You might be lucky if you find it, it's the best movie version ever made. I have it here .

Or better, read Anna Karennina.

As for the ambiguity between emotion and reason, yes, it is quite difficult to judge your emotions "reasonable" based only on your logic, I pretty much agree with you. Ultimately, it comes down to finding a compromise between both, that will lead to balance in your life.

[Kscott]

Then watch the movie, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk. You might be lucky if you find it, it's the best movie version ever made. I have it here .

I will look, but the prospects of finding it probably are not too high

As for the ambiguity between emotion and reason, yes, it is quite difficult to judge your emotions "reasonable" based only on your logic, I pretty much agree with you. Ultimately, it comes down to finding a compromise between both, that will lead to balance in your life.

And thus the never ending debate in my head rages on.......

[HopliteElite]

I was awed to turn to the page that contained the exact answer I was looking for. I was awed the first time I ever saw a mountain. I am continually awed when I embrace my love. I am awed by my elders who have such keep their faith with such dignity and will. Life is one big wonder after the other. It seems rather optimistic to assume this means after death we get to walk on golden streets, but all this awe seems to point to something. What exactly this is I am not sure, but surely something. This key aspect is completely ignored in all the religous debates.

Your awe, however, is subjective and based upon your emotions, so your logical side should override such feelings and bring you back down to a rational mindset. That mountain is just a large heap of earth and rock, the awe from embracing your love is just chemical reactions in your brain stimulated by electrical impulses. All of the wonders of physical reality can be explained using logic. There simply is no room for religion or spirituality in the mindset of a rational person.

I however completely understand your ambivalence. It is very hard to distinguish if all this emotion is merely wishful thinking. Logically certainly tells me so.

Go with what logic tells you. If you use it properly you will not be led astray. Skepticism of anything that cannot be empircally proven and scientifically tested is logical. It is so easy to abandon logic or put it on the backburner to indulge in some cheap thrills but you cannot suppress logic forever.

Indeed. I certainly can understand why many are led to atheism, but I simply cannot ignore my emotions.

So do not ignore them but rather study them and try to explain them. I have rid myself of most of the feelings that I've deemed irrational by being honest with myself as to my symptoms, then studying the causes of such feelings, from the sociological and biological perspective. After you can understand these "emotions" scientifically, you can really dismiss them as simple phantoms. I know whenever I think I am really attracted to a female, for example, I begin to think of what a good/cool/fun person she must be, but then I snap back into reality and realize this is almost certainly just the halo effect. Then those idealistic feelings go away and I snap back into reality.

[Ragabash]

Are you sure it's the true emotional state of a human mind that dictates our need for a superior being, a leader, a god, and just not the cultural and social development of a human race?

The origins for modern religions, their practices and traditions can be traced back to the birth of actual, larger human societies and increasing transaction with larger population. Before we humans started to form larger socities and contacts with other people, they tend to view the world around them as an equal to them, as something we were part of, rather than being either above or below by any standards or moral settings. We were part of the nature, altough our own place in the nature was very different from the spirits and such.

This same transaction can be seen with many of the tribes in the pacific sea and southern america; where old believes and shamanistic traditions are replaced with a new need for a modern consept of religion as they come to accept and understand that they are part of a larger society, larger collective mind rather than just their tribe and the very surroundings.

I will post more on development of the human socities should you like, but not right now as I have some other work to do.

Basically, I see that religious emotions you seem to dictate as a natural part of our emotional state and human mind, is just a cultural product of thousands of years. The society has created the being above us, where first religious experiences were often quite the contradictary, we were all part of our enviorement; no more, no less. It's just a behaviour pattern that we have adapted, just like the creating of very first tools and the like.

The change occured as socities could basically no longer hang out to these principles due to the cultural and collective feeling of something bigger; and thus the modern consept of a religion was created.

EDIT: Post edited somewhat!

[Kscott]

Are you sure it's the true emotional state of a human mind that dictates our need for a superior being, a leader, a god, and just not the cultural and social development of a human race?

Nope, im not really sure about anything when it comes to this*, though Im pretty sure it is not cultural. I have spent the last year as essentially an atheist yet I find these emotions resurfacing. I thought that I it all figured out, logic was on my side. There was no god. Yet then I realized that everything was infinitely more complicated than I had made it and that there very well could be a god despite logic.

The origins for a modern religions, their practices and traditions can be traced back to the birth of modern consept of human societies. Before humans started to form larger socities they tend to view world around them as an equal to them, as something we were part of, rather than being either above or below by any standards or moral settings. We were part of the nature, altough our own place in the nature was very different from spirits and such.

This same transaction can be seen with many of the tribes in the pacific sea and southern america; where old believes and shamanistic traditions are replaced with new need for a modern consept of religion as they accept and understand more that they are part of a larger society, larger collective mind.

No doubt. I have no doubt that all modern religions are essentially wrong. This is why when I first left Christianity I became something of a shaman. It just seemed closer to the natural state of things( admittedly my love of hallucinogenic drugs also played a part in this decision).

I will post more on development of the human socities should you like, but not right now as I have some other work to do.

Basically, I see that religious emotions you seem to dictate as a natural part of our emotional state and human mind, is just a cultural product of thousands of years. The society has created a being above us, where first religious experiences were often quite the contradictary, we were all part of our enviorement; no more, no less.

But what is this environment? We already know that it far extends past our perceptions, with sounds we will never be able to hear and frequencies of light we will never be able to see. Even dimensions that we are not able to perceive. I do not feel that we are servants of some mighty master as in the Christian religion, but part of something greater, some god-like being or force.

Thanks for the response, though I am a little sad that you didn't welcome me back

HopliteElite,

Your awe, however, is subjective and based upon your emotions, so your logical side should override such feelings and bring you back down to a rational mindset. That mountain is just a large heap of earth and rock, the awe from embracing your love is just chemical reactions in your brain stimulated by electrical impulses. All of the wonders of physical reality can be explained using logic. There simply is no room for religion or spirituality in the mindset of a rational person.

Indeed it is entirely subjective. That is the point that I was trying to make, there is a huge subjective side to life and you cannot completely ignore it. I would agree that there is no room for spirituality, but humans are not and cannot be rational.

Go with what logic tells you. If you use it properly you will not be led astray. Skepticism of anything that cannot be empircally proven and scientifically tested is logical. It is so easy to abandon logic or put it on the backburner to indulge in some cheap thrills but you cannot suppress logic forever.

You can certainly be led astray with logic. Logic can lead you to the wrong answer. It is merely a human construct to help lead to the truth. Not a flawless method. Human logic will always be limited by human perceptions.

So do not ignore them but rather study them and try to explain them. I have rid myself of most of the feelings that I've deemed irrational by being honest with myself as to my symptoms, then studying the causes of such feelings, from the sociological and biological perspective. After you can understand these "emotions" scientifically, you can really dismiss them as simple phantoms. I know whenever I think I am really attracted to a female, for example, I begin to think of what a good/cool/fun person she must be, but then I snap back into reality and realize this is almost certainly just the halo effect.

You cannot really explain love. Yes it is physically caused by chemicals. It brings you into a chemical euphoria similar to ones caused by drugs. But anyone who has actually experienced love can tell you that they are not the same. Science can only explain the biological factors, not really what love is. Just how you feel it. If it could be described perfectly by science we would have no needs for poets.

Then those idealistic feelings go away and I snap back into reality.

Now reality is another matter completely and one that I don't really wish to go into here. I can only talk about so much in one thread.

[Ragabash]

Nope, im not really sure about anything when it comes to this*, though Im pretty sure it is not cultural. I have spent the last year as essentially an atheist yet I find these emotions resurfacing. I thought that I it all figured out, logic was on my side. There was no god. Yet then I realized that everything was infinitely more complicated than I had made it and that there very well could be a god despite logic.

But it's the concept of god that is cultural product, and not the spiritual state of human mind itself. That can be traced how our brains function; that we are basically capable of thinking what is not only there, but what could be or could be not. This was the same capability that was essential in creating first tools and the weapons. The product was different, but the source same.

But what is this environment? We already know that it far extends past our perceptions, with sounds we will never be able to hear and frequencies of light we will never be able to see. Even dimensions that we are not able to perceive. I do not feel that we are servants of some mighty master as in the Christian religion, but part of something greater, some god-like being or force.

The enviorement was basically the physical world around us with certain attributes of spiritual world; altough it all remained very much tied to the real world. Spirits and the like were no outside this world, they were bond to our physical enviorement just like all of us; all that differ was how we, and them perceived the world around us.

For the dimensions, force and the like I cannot comment as I don't see them, hear them or feel them in anyway personally. But here is the dilemma; if I don't feel them, are they natural part of humanity? or just a product of something else?

Thanks for the response, though I am a little sad that you didn't welcome me back

I just noticed you had arrived back; and did not want to welcome you back with just a random post but a decent, at least half debatable post if no more.

[Kscott]

But it's the concept of god that is cultural product, and not the spiritual state of human mind itself. That can be traced how our brains function; that we are basically capable of thinking what is not only there, but what could be or could be not. This was the same questioning and capability that was essential in creating first tools. The product was different, but the source same.

So how then is it a cultural concept? Each and every culture has its own concept of god/gods/God/reality but the point is that every culture has one. This means that either
a)there is something pulling everyone to this belief, a.k.a subjective reality
or
b)We all share the basic fear, hope, and wonder. Religion is nothing more than the manifestations of these.
or
c) combination of the above.

Regardless this is not a cultural concept. It is a human phenomena.

The enviorement is basically the physical world around us with certain attributes of spiritual world; altough it all remained very much tied to the real world. Spirits and the like where no outside this world, they were bond to our physical enviorement just like us; all that differ was how we, and them perceived the world around us.

But the mind already exists outside this environment. The mind has no objective basis. So some subjective world must exist. And even the objective environment is mostly unobservable by us. How then can we completely rely on logic to understand this environment?

For the dimensions, force and the like I cannot comment as I don't see them, hear them or feel them in anyway personally. But here is the dilemma; if I don't feel them, are they natural part of humanity? or just a product of something else?

Im not exactly sure what you mean. My point is that while you cannot understand these things in any personal way they are an intricate part of your environment. They are essential in the fabric of the universe. How then can we merely use objectivity as a basis for things when our objectivity is
a)seen through a subjective lense
&
b)very limited in scope to the true objectivity.

I just noticed you had arrived back; and did not want to welcome you back with just a random post but a decent, at least half debatable post if no more.

I guess that is acceptable

[Ragabash]

So how then is it a cultural concept? Each and every culture has its own concept of god/gods/God/reality but the point is that every culture has one. This means that either
a)there is something pulling everyone to this belief, a.k.a subjective reality
or
b)We all share the basic fear, hope, and wonder. Religion is nothing more than the manifestations of these.
or
c) combination of the above.

I was speaking on modern consept of a religion in general, not how it developped in certain areas. The consept of higher being, something completely outside of this world is a product of societies while the different consept of gods is a cultural product.

Regardless this is not a cultural concept. It is a human phenomena.

Yes, but this does not necessary mean that it is something that is common to all people, something that is part human attribute outside the cultural and sociologoical product. Just like the art, spiritualism is part of humanity, but that doesn't make the matter necessary or essential for the humanity itself.

But the mind already exists outside this environment. The mind has no objective basis. So some subjective world must exist. And even the objective environment is mostly unobservable by us. How then can we completely rely on logic to understand this environment?

Apologies, I edited the post too slow; what I meant with this was how early humans saw the spirituality compared to modern people. And mind does not exist outside this enviorement; it remains within our own imagination, that is part of how our brain functions.

Spiritual state of human mind is a natural behaviour code inside us, to imagine and question what is out there, and what is not; but this does not mean it's something we must rely on as an absolute truth. It's a product from the same source, the brains; just for the whole different aspect. It's comparable to the adaptation of tools and weapons, but just for the mind itself in this time.

Im not exactly sure what you mean. My point is that while you cannot understand these things in any personal way they are an intricate part of your environment. They are essential in the fabric of the universe. How then can we merely use objectivity as a basis for things when our objectivity is
a)seen through a subjective lense
&
b)very limited in scope to the true objectivity.

The dilemma is that if I don't feel any kind of force or greater existance, how can it be natural to all humans?

[chriscase]

Let me start with a brief history of myself. I grew up a liberal protestant and sometime last year I realized that Christianity was probably not true. So I did some soul searching and went from pantheism to Buddhism to weak atheism and now completely undecided.

Just the other day I was feeling rather down and trying to figure out the meaning of life. It seems the more knowledge I gain the more I gain a nihilistic outlook on thing. Morality and purpose are just such terrible complicated concepts that I can't help but feel insignificant. I however refuse to accept a place of insignificance.

So I remembered from my Presbyterian days "What is the chief end of man?". It was the perfect articulation of my feelings. WHAT IS IT! I felt so lost. As this internal struggle was raging I walked into my room. There on the floor I found my old Presbyterian history book and opened to a random page. This first thing I read was an excerpt about the shorter catechism that said
Q :What is the chief end of man?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Well, you are in good company there.

Now I am not the type of person to usually buy into this type of thing, nor do I expect anyone here to, but I couldn't help but to feel amazed. This did not convert me back to Christianity, but it did make a point that I would like to share here.

In religious debates on this forum and others the religious always seem to loose. Others may not agree, but objective evidence seems to weigh far heavier for the skeptics. It just seems so irrational to believe in a higher power, none the less a specific religion. But these debates seem to be missing a pivotal part of the human existence, emotions. We are not objective machines and I really don't think many would want to be. We are 'blinded' by our own personal perceptions and experiences. Yet while these things 'blind' us from objective 'truth' they are the very key of what makes us human.

Surely it is wrong to ignore subjective experience? My experience with the book was very likely due to chance however something in my heart tells me it was not. I feel there MUST be some kind of higher power. I really don't know what form it takes, but I just feel it must be there in some way. I understand this is not a logical conclusion and it would be very easy to show me how I am being illogical. This is why atheism seems so much more popular on the forums than it does in 'real' life. In real life things are based much more on emotion. It is simply human nature.

So my question is this. At what point do we deny logic and follow our hearts. We separate them, but in the end they both originate in our minds. It is hard for me to place faith in human logic when we are so limited in our perceptions compared to what there is overall to perceive.

It seems to me that you are carrying around a lot of spiritualist baggage here. Some of the ideas you expressed:
- An empirical philosophy excludes a fulfilling emotional life.
- What makes us "human", i.e., special, is our subjective, irrational nature.
- In order to experience true emotional fulfillment, one must ultimately abandon a rational, empirical perspective of the world.
- The prospect of a rational, empirical outlook is confining when compared to the vastness of the universe.

I have to say I disagree with every one of these ideas. It is absolutely possible to live an emotionally rich, deeply fulfilling life without reliance on ideas of a "higher power". Ideas of religion and "higher" meaning are just that - ideas. They are intrinsically no more fulfilling than any other idea, and they certainly should not be mistaken for emotional fulfillment. It is our cultural training that builds emotional associations with those ideas and symbols.

Also, keep in mind that there is, in fact, a scientific discipline devoted, among other things, to the understanding of subjective emotional states. One of the cardinal rules of science is that observed phenomena are the principal source of information about the world; theory must follow observation. And observation clearly indicates that subjective emotional states exist and are therefore subjectible to investigation.

While there are difficulties with the reliability of information obtained by talking to people, psychological research proceeds from the assumption that scientific exploration of the psyche is nevertheless possible using, in part, information obtained by talking to people about their experiences.

Nor does the lack of any current workable theory that explains a set of observations exclude the possibility of a reasonable theory being developed in the future. Even assuming that there is no scientific explanation for a "spiritual" experience, that would only mean the phenomenon is not yet understood.

You may find the work of Stan Grof interesting. He has devoted much of his career to the study of non-ordinary states of consciousness. One of his observations is that traditional rites of passage in many cultures involve similar physical, psychological, and symbolic elements, many of which appear to be organized around the birth process. His therapeutic practices are informed by the theory that non-ordinary states of consciousness are intrinsic to, and likely key components of, psychological development at certain critical times - rites of passage.

Grof's theories also attempt to explain the human psyche's capacity for cosmic and transpersonal experiences in terms of Holonomic brain theory.

There is no doubt that Grof's work is out there, and may ultimately be disproven, in part or entirely. But it does serve as an example of how a completely rational, empirical worldview can contemplate some of the wildest states of consciousness imaginable.

[Ragabash]

The human spiritualism is not something we should stop to embrace however, not in my opinion. Just like we use our brains for other stuff in our daily lives we can conduct spiritual thinking either we were atheists, deists, agnostics etc.

I just disagree that one has to make the matter more than it's; a production of our own brain function. It has its own purpose, after all; it's part of our mind, either I, or you liked it or not. I might disagree with the source, and the mean, but I most certainly do not deny its existance; I just see it in a different light, in a different perspective.

I hope you can read between the lines with this fast reply.

[Kscott]

Yes, I think I understand your positions from all of our old msn debates

[Ruin]

It just seems so irrational to believe in a higher power, none the less a specific religion.

Which was what eventually led me away from my designated path (My mother's catholic schooling, my deviance from which she is increasingly horrified by).

Surely it is wrong to ignore subjective experience?

It is not only wrong, it is fundamentally impossible. We are incapable of experiencing things objectively.

So my question is this. At what point do we deny logic and follow our hearts. We separate them, but in the end they both originate in our minds. It is hard for me to place faith in human logic when we are so limited in our perceptions compared to what there is overall to perceive.

I must seek prior forgiveness for what I am about to do: Use Freud.
Here I am using the basics of Freud, the Id, Ego and Superego series. The Id is basic animalistic urges, very much our "hearts" as you put them. The Ego is the next stage, where the Id is suppressed by the rules placed upon us by the superego. For children this is their parents, for parents their governing authority, for the governing authority one another (this is why single-person or party governments are so corrupt, they have no superego to repress their Id, so succumb to their pure urges). The Superego is what emerges when the ego becomes one with the system, the laws become part of her moral code etc.
In another, parallel model, the human mind is itself a representation of all three. Id is primal urges and the superego reason and consciousness. Together they contribute to the ego, the basic human 'I' which you think of. Here you question whether it should be the superego or Id which reigns, in very much a mind or body battle. I have no doubt in saying the superego should always dampen the Id, and that reason should always come across primal urge. As this is what separates us from other animals, quite the opposite of what you said.

The "higher being" urge which you speak of is the Id crying out against meaninglessness and the need for everything to be simply caused, for understanding. In Deists this takes precedence. In Pure Atheists the Superego does, dampening this urge and leading to inevitable Nihilism and existentialism. In real life a balance must be struck, against the former to prevent the collapse of rationality and understanding, against the latter to prevent insanity.

[chriscase]

Here I am using the basics of Freud, the Id, Ego and Superego series. The Id is basic animalistic urges, very much our "hearts" as you put them. The Ego is the next stage, where the Id is suppressed by the rules placed upon us by the superego. For children this is their parents, for parents their governing authority, for the governing authority one another (this is why single-person or party governments are so corrupt, they have no superego to repress their Id, so succumb to their pure urges). The Superego is what emerges when the ego becomes one with the system, the laws become part of her moral code etc.
In another, parallel model, the human mind is itself a representation of all three. Id is primal urges and the superego reason and consciousness. Together they contribute to the ego, the basic human 'I' which you think of. Here you question whether it should be the superego or Id which reigns, in very much a mind or body battle. I have no doubt in saying the superego should always dampen the Id, and that reason should always come across primal urge. As this is what separates us from other animals, quite the opposite of what you said.

The "higher being" urge which you speak of is the Id crying out against meaninglessness and the need for everything to be simply caused, for understanding. In Deists this takes precedence. In Pure Atheists the Superego does, dampening this urge and leading to inevitable Nihilism and existentialism. In real life a balance must be struck, against the former to prevent the collapse of rationality and understanding, against the latter to prevent insanity.

Freud: The best understanding of the psyche that the 19th century had to offer.

Ruin, the use of Freud in this sense wrongly reinforces the depiction of psychology as a fundamentally barren view of inner life. This is a shame, since even Freudian case studies, particularly Anna O., demonstrate quite the opposite.

Freud is well and good. We are all Freudians, in the same sense that we are all Platonists. But you really should come back to the 21st century. A lot has happened since Freud.

[Ruin]

Freud is well and good. We are all Freudians, in the same sense that we are all Platonists. But you really should come back to the 21st century. A lot has happened since Freud.

Sadly I don't know much of psychology post-Freud.
The reason I used his words in my example was not to produce his arguments but rather to produce a more concisive point of my own, as developing and using my own terminology would have taken easily three times the amount of words.