Simple as believing in what you see?

“The Book of J”, though differs from King James Bible in numerous ways, still preserved many of the most well-known religious stories in Christianity and Judaism. It describes the creation of humanity and its earliest civilizations, portraying not only the power of Yahweh but also the interaction between Yahweh and the mankind. Through the stories of conflicts and harmonies, we could re-establish the journey human civilization with the gradually conscious adoption of religious and moral values. On this matter, Sigmund Freud believed that religions are “mass delusions” [P.32-9]. The ego ideal in religion is substitute for a longing for the fatherly figure since childhood. When the ego falls short of its ideal, a religious sense of piety and humility induced. Nevertheless, with respective to the story of Abram from “The Book of J”, deviations from the Freudian psychology on religion and morality can be observed.

In ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’, Freud concludes that people resort to religions because the system “assures him that a higher Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustration he suffers here.” [P.22-7] Most importantly, he believes that such infantile wishes are directed to “an enormously exalted father”. [P.22-10] Indeed, in many religions, the piety of the believers is shown most passionately in their devotion in nurturing their “bond” with such a figure, who is the embodiment of attributes desirable yet unattainable by mankind. Abram was the first man chosen, guided and blessed by Yahweh for his whole life. In the account on his fruitful relationship with Yahweh, for the first time in the book, there also appears a detailed description of “the exalted father” in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However, it is puzzling that Yahweh, in the story of Abram, exhibited inconsistency in exercising his power over the earthlings, especially on issues involved equality and justice—ideals relentlessly sought after since time immemorial. If religious feelings, as Freud believes, largely stem from the longing of helpless human beings for shield from the ruthless nature and the possible coercion from fellow human beings, it is difficult to account for the lack of objection from women over Yahweh’s inadequate regulation when Abram intentionally gave up his wife Sarai, who became Pharaoh’s concubine, for his own wealth and safety. Furthermore, Hagar upheld her unwavering faith, exclaiming that “You are the God I lived to see—and lived after seeing” [P.81-38], even though neither Abram nor Sarai was blamed for the unfair treatment of Hagar despite her obedience as the surrogate, which seems horrifying in its magnification--“The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. In the story of Abram pleading Yahweh to reconsider his annihilation of Sodom, a stark contrast was displayed between the heroic determination of Abram with the disappointing recklessness of Yahweh, which almost resulted in desecration of the heavenly decision-making process. In this context, Yahweh seems far from the resemblance of the father figure in Freud’s psychoanalysis of religion, who can convince his followers to bear with the frustrations in life and abide by his moral principles in hoping for a blissful future.

On the other hand, for the earthlings, the condemnation of contempt towards Yahweh surpassed that of any moral sins, even the self-mocking laugh of Sarai outraged Yahweh. Yet he did not consider it offending when Abram questioned his impartiality towards the innocent in Sodome nor unethical when daughters “conspired” to conceive children for their father Lot. Moreover, when Sodom was about to be abandoned by Yahweh, the absence of repentance was incongruent with Freud’s assumption that “what is bad is whatever causes one to be threatened with the loss of love”. [P.85-20] In the Bronze Age civilization presented in the story, the fear of the authority--Yahweh, seemed not be able to arise any noticeable guilt or remorse administered by the superego.

The reason for the incompatibility of Freud’s analysis (especially the part on morality) with “The Book of J”, I venture to propose, may lie in the drastically different levels of material well-being of two civilizations where the two authors lived. Freud lived in a time of rapid technological advances when life expectancy was not longer at the mercy of God and the sustainable economy allowed people to pursue their spiritual needs. Whereas three thousand years ago, when the top concern of mankind was to survive and sustain the familial bloodline, the most expedient guidelines practiced naturally differed from the contemporary view of morality and justice. Hence, while religion in the context of 19^th century Europe was to alleviate people’s dissatisfaction of being inhibited from following instinctual desires, the saga in “The Book of J” represented the initial struggle to preserve human species, during which compromises had to be made and submissive attitudes adopted when confronted by the unknown nature and fate. Based on this assumption, however, Freud’s theory that “Eros and Ananke [Love and Necessity] become the parents of human civilization” [P.55-17] helps to explain the rudimentary forms of customs and culture observed in “The Book of J”, which might be the most pragmatic application possible. As a piece of religious text, the question on how the imperfect image of God was interpreted and utilized for religious purposes still remains unresolved. However, I have come to appreciate that, in a society which still prioritized generating surplus to enlarge the community, it was somehow reasonable for J to depict a God who is not the embodiment of a comprehensive set of virtues deemed indispensible by modern societies of both Freud’s and our time.