The 1800 and 1900s saw an era of philosophical, evolutionary and scientific discovery. During this period both Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and William James (1842-1920) began to approach psychological theory in relation to religion and human nature. Through comparing the central principles of both theorists, a discussion can arise on the concepts of health, well-being and religion.
Freud attempted to understand the unconscious and that human urges were forged around our emotions (Pals 2006, 54). Freud viewed our inner conflict through the relation of three aspects. The id (Our urges and emotion driven actions), the super-ego (Our rational behaviour) and the ego (The mediator between the id and super-ego) which when these aspects collide create an inner conflict, “the fundamental thing about the drives is the idea of conflict, of struggle that takes place both within (…) and between the drives of the outside world” (Pals 2006, 59- 60).
As a nonbeliever, he saw no motivation to have faith in God and saw no quality in the customs inside of a religion. He saw religion as a superstition which brought up issues about human instinct: why are individuals religious in the event that it is not judicious? (Pals 2006, 65). A scholarly angle expresses that religious individuals attempt to be balanced, however the customs of forbidden and ceremonies of totem are counter sanity. To answer why individuals keep on rehearsing religions, Freud recommends the answer is in the oblivious. It is a consequence of the instability.
Freud saw human nature as vulnerable in the face of nature. Freud saw our condition of defencelessness towards nature with which we likewise experienced as new-born children. We particularly dreaded and respected our dad. A comparable disposition of apprehension and adoration towards God is clear in every religion (Freud 2006, 251).
In comparison to Freud, James is seen to not focus on the origins of religious thinking. One can see that James was intrigued in...