Berger's "Sacred Canopy," and Freud's "The Future

Berger's "Sacred Canopy," and Freud's "The Future of an illusion" are both secular theories of religion. Berger's theory is based on a sociological understanding of human nature, while Freud's analysis is based largely upon his psychoanalytical theories. Both theories feel that the human fear of the terror of nature and death are at the root of the phenomenon of religion. In "The Sacred canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion," Berger seeks to understand religion through a sociological framework.

His theory of religion is based on the premise that "every human society is an enterprise of world-building" (Berger). As such, Berger explains that our perceived world is constantly being created through what he refers to as a dialectical process. This process has three key aspects: externalization, objectivation, and internalization. In externalization, our thoughts become translated into the products we make and the actions that we take.

When the products of our thoughts appear in the outside world (are externalized) they then influence us by shaping our behaviors and future thoughts (internalization). In simpler terms, Berger argues that we have an internal representation of reality. Our actions and the objects that we create reflect this internal world. What we create then feeds back to us, and we ultimately become the passive subjects of what we have created (or externalized). We generally lack awareness of this process because it is a collective undertaking.

World building occurs at the societal and social level, and is so complex that it is difficult to discern or interpret from the point-of-view of a single individual. In short, Berger argued that religion was a human construction, based on the human need to understand and subdue the natural world, and an important part of the human endeavour of world building. He argues that humans have created religion and sacredness in order to protect against the harsh realities of the natural world.

As such, he sees religion as a sort of shield against existential terrors, or a sacred canopy. This sacred canopy is maintained by the human social order, an objectification. This social order, with the church as the key institution, then serves to justify our internal beliefs about the external world. Berger then delves into the phenomenon of secularization. He argues that the rational, mechanistic world that we live in has reduced the social plausibility of the sacred, and of religion.

In other words, as our external world and our institutions have changed, this has caused our internal reality to change as well. In our day-to-day lives, we now think in secular terms, and the sacred canopy is now disintegrating. We no longer have religion to protect us against the harsh realities of the external world. In "The Future of an illusion" Freud placed religion in the larger context of human culture and made it accessible to scientific investigation as any other human behavior or phenomenon.

Freud felt that religion was essentially based in the human need to reduce the feeling of helplessness when man confronted the cruelties of nature, including death. " Religious ideas have sprung from the same need as all the other achievements of culture: from the necessity for defending itself against the crushing supremacy of nature" (Freud). He argued that religion was a way for humans to try and compensate for the sufferings that civilized life had imposed upon them.

Freud likened the human feeling of helplessness when confronted with power of nature to the feeling children have when confronted with danger. Children run to their parents for protection and comfort in the face of danger, but adults have no parental figure to seek comfort from. Therefore, Freud argued, humans created a parental figure to protect them, in the form of a God, or divine power.

Freud argued that our notion of God as all-seeing and all-powerful stems directly from our experiences as children when our parents appear to be omnipotent. Interestingly, when we consider the Judeo-Christian concept as God as the Father, and all humans as his children, Freud's theory seems to have hit upon something important. Ultimately, Freud felt that religion was simply a human illusion, built of the human need for protection against the forces of nature.

He did not feel that religion was necessarily a delusion, and that in fact, religion may even, possibly come true. He felt that the problem was that religious beliefs sprung from undisciplined and uncritical human desires. As such, he argued that a rational system of thought might have a chance to improve the human condition. He argued that science and religion were completely incompatible systems of thought, and that science may succeed where religion had failed. Freud noted, "No, our science is no illusion.

But an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere" (Freud). Berger would likely not necessarily disagreed with the psychoanalytic bent of Freud's views on religion. However, he would have argued that such analysis was unnecessary, as the forces that create and sustain religion are sociological in nature. In other words, Freud analyzed religion at the.