1

Fatih Sinan Esen

FREUD’S ARGUMENT ON RELIGION AND

THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH

Religion is a common concept for the human being on Earth whether it is necessary or not. For thousands of years, as from the creation of the first human being, people discussed the religions, gods, goddesses. By looking at the history of civilizations, we can see that. Well, religion was in Mesopotamia, in where the period if civilization made its bigger jump. In Mesopotamia, polytheism was common. So, they believed in religion. Nowadays, a huge majority believes that there should be god (or gods) and they also say that there is (are), too. Also there were some people, who did not believe in any god and refused the existence of celestial forces on human’s life. Sigmund Freud is a hallmark about this subject, Atheism. He rejects the existence of god and claims that, the religion is a universal neurosis and a mass delusion. He describes it with “oceanic feeling” (the sense of boundlessness and oneness felt between the ego and the outside world). Freud is in conflict with many other present ideas, writings and events about religion. One of those writings, that do not support Freud’s ideas, is the Epic of Gilgamesh which belongs to between 2500-3000 (B.C). We cannot disregard the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is mostly a Sumerian epic, because the noteworthy progress was taken at those times and at that region, Mesopotamia.

While looking at Freud’s argument on religion, it comes unsound with some of its distinct ways, after reading the Epic of Gilgamesh. The conflict between them arises from Freud’s thoughts about religion, which he described it with, future of an illusion, infantile helplessness, mass-delusion, typical formation of it for an authority for many civilizations,

2

being god with technology (prosthetic gods) and some other key-points, which are described differently or not present in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Regrettably, Mr. Freud, but the Epic of Gilgamesh fails to support and modify, even, the basic points of your pessimistic argument on religion and gods.

The major difference between Freud and the epic is that, Freud says there are no gods. But in the epic, there are many different gods that are responsible for different jobs. Relations between gods and goddesses in the epic are very different from Freud’s view of religion. All the differences grow out of this point. At first, Freud’s view of god does not fit the view in Mesopotamia. Freud rejects the existence of gods while they were accepting, but sometimes rebelling, to gods in the epic. Rebelliousness and refusal are two “very distinct” notions that shouldn’t be mixed together. As an example for the rebel, we can give the holler from Engidu to Ishtar after killing the bull of heaven. He shouts her with terrible threats. Another example is the refusal of Ishtar by Gilgamesh. He, also, degrades Ishtar and shouts badly with insulting her seriously.

Freud claims that religion is derived from the sense of helplessness in human beings. He continues by saying that this is an infantile helplessness and is comparable to a childhood neurosis. God is an “authoritative figure instead of father figure” for him and god sense fits the father figure. People want to be protected against superior powers of nature and cry on one’s shoulder with an infantile sense. This protector is “god” for many people, which is a self-reinforcing delusion. This is a weakness of helpless people, which act like frightened children and use this belief as a crutch in order to be happy and to access “happiness”. By claiming all these ideas, Freud labels religion as an illusion. When we look at the epic, in general, there aren’t any refugee statuses of people to gods and goddesses from natural forces or other fears. Instead, gods and goddesses act like destructive forces, mostly. Ea’s flood can be a good example to this. Ishtar and her

3

revenge (bull of heaven) is another good example. It can be given several examples. So we can say that the gods are a bit problematic in the epic. People usually want to gain all their needs by themselves instead of wanting from their gods. Because, the events in the epic show that, gods are not perfect, too. People know this and usually don’t ask for further help. They decide firmly to do or to gain something. This is a major point that the epic does not support Freud’s argument on religion, because there are no childhood senses, infantile helplessness nor demand of protection from people to the gods. Gods usually want to get revenge and be destructive. So we cannot talk about any protective force that makes people believe in gods.

One of the distinct points is Freud’s “prosthetic god” concept. He assumes that, human beings become prosthetic gods with technology. By using the word prosthetic, Freud suggested technologies could be seen as artificial adjuncts to the human capabilities. This may be correct for today, but when we look at the epic, we see that Gilgamesh (who is 2/3 almighty and 1/3 human) has god’s features, not because of any technology, but his strength and power like Hercules in Greek civilization. Thus, we can say that, Freud’s idea about “being prosthetic gods” is not supported by the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Freud claims, religion has ruled civilizations for many thousands of years and had time to show what it can achieve. He, by saying this, means that religion, who believe in god (or gods-goddesses), makes a repression on people in civilizations in order not to cause any anarchy or disquiet. But in the epic, Shamash behaves unkind and helps Gilgamesh and Enkidu while they were killing Humbaba, who is the “authoritative force” in the forest. Then, the forest becomes indefensible. A god makes this, instead of playing an active role on ruling the civilization. With this sense, the poem does not support Freud’s argument.

4

In the Epic of Gilgamesh (at sixth tablet), Gilgamesh has a bath and become clean. He throws away his bad and filthy clothes and cleans himself. He, then, wears his embroidered belt and puts his regalia on. After that, Ishtar’s eyes gets bigger and bigger by looking his handsomeness and royality. He adores Gilgamesh and wants to make love with him. She wants him as an husband and makes some promises like carts with golden wheels and gigantic mules. But Gilgamesh refuses this proposal by insulting her. This relation (goddess-human love) is not mentioned by Freud. Freud comes with only two forms of love and friendship. One is to friends, the other is to the family. These relations are between humans. God is not decribed as anlove object by Freud, but a crutch for helpless people. Unfortunately, this definition of love, friendship and god fails in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

In conclusion, we can say that, Freud’s sight of religions and gods has some major differences with the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is obvious that, the Epic of Gilgamesh fails to modify and does not support Freud’s argument, because these are divergent ideas. What is distinct is comprehensive of god concept differently and describing religion very differently. Relations between gods and goddesses in the epic are very different from Freud’s view of religion. All the other differences derived from this point. We should heed what is said in this ancient Mesopotamian epic (even some do not call it as an epic), because cultures and civilizations made a huge progress at Mesopotamia. If we remove technological and scientific aspects from our lives, the rest is Gilgamesh. Main and basic human behaviors and appetites are can be read and realized in this epic. Unfortunately, this valuable and noteworthy text from ancient does not support nor modify Freud.

REFERENCES:

5

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents, The Standard Edition, Translated and Edited by James Strachey. W.W.Norton & Company-New York and London (1961)

The Epic of Gilgamesh. Publisher: Stanford Univ Press (December 1989) Translated: Maureen Gallery Kovacs.