Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as Examples
Marx is one of the most famous philosophers in the last two centuries, who exercised influence not only on intellectuals but through them also on wider circles of society; workers, peasants and so-called petty bourgeoisie. This multiplicity of his followers, rallying round very active leaders, provided a permanent record of this ideology in history – history labeled with revolutions, blood, and violence in the communist countries.
Sigmund Freud, in turn, competes Marx among educated circles of society and its doctrine of psychoanalysis seems most enduring philosophical infatuation among contemporary intellectuals. Although very different, both eminent thinkers have one thing in common; an insistent claim to be regarded as scientists, unlike all the others. There were other attempts to explain social development, history, and the human soul, they suggest, but things are placed on a scientific basis for the first time just from them.
Let’s look at how valid are these pretensions, especially considering that both men arbitrarily rejected a verified and indispensable source of information, as is the Bible. Can one claim a scholarly philosophy if it suffers from severe informational failure?
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
It seems that it is the materialization of his ideas in history maintains a high academic status of this philosophy. Even today, after the collapse of communist regimes in Europe, his works are studied in universities and a discussion on assessment or reassessment of his theories goes on.
Marx’s claim to scientific rigor is taken seriously by many and his works continue to be regarded as almost the only scientific explaining of social processes. Without the forced plantations by communist regimes Marx doctrine today lost its previous position of a state ideology, but it still does not give up its claim to scientific rigor.
Let us judge how justified is this position?
Karl Marx was ancestral intellectual. He was born and educated after generations of lawyers, rabbis interpreters of the Talmud. He had a superior education in Bonn and Berlin universities. A Ph.D. in philosophy. This origin and the German scientific school explain his propensity to gain encyclopedic knowledge by examining a large number of sources relevant to the problem and patiently gathering facts. It is a working manner, which is not uncommon in academia.
An impression of great erudition is something always highly appreciated among the educated people. On closer look, however, we find that the vast erudition in itself does not make a person a scientist. At least two conditions have been always required for this: A good, comprehensive competence on the topic and a high degree of intellectual honesty. Above all, of course, the scientist has to know well the subject of his research, to have accurate and complete information. The more competent is a researcher in his field, higher is the quality of the theoretical and philosophical synthesis he does.
Conversely, the lack of information leads to poor, schematic and ultimately false results. In academia, people know that comprehensive literature search prior to any research is half the job done. Knowledge of important, key information is crucial. Knowledge, however, has never been sufficient to secure a scientific work. No less important, quality of a researcher is his ability to make an objective assessment of the facts, regardless of his personal preferences and interests.
Subjectivism is not a desirable phenomenon in science and must be carefully avoided. The scientist must be able to honestly consider all facts relevant to the subject without selecting only those that confirm his thesis. He should be able to do sober, objective, impartial conclusions about the reality he seeks to explain. Otherwise, he became a lawyer, an ideologue, a sophist. In this sense, Einstein wrote that the nature of one’s personality, his ability to seek and defend the truth regardless of personal interest is what makes a person a scientist.
Did Marx possess these qualities and to what extent? Was this scientist that man who captured the minds of millions? As noted, Marx tended to study a large number of written sources. He spent decades of his life in different libraries, gathering facts fulfilling more than 100 thick notebooks. 
In this, Marx remained in harmony with the best academic traditions; bad beginnings in his selection and interpretation of those facts. He approached the facts selectively, depending on the thesis that he wanted to prove. Another philosopher, Karl Jaspers, said, “He [Marx] does not cite examples or substantiate facts that contradict his own theory, and present evidence that unequivocally confirms what he considered irrefutable truth. His approach is legal and not research.” 
Researchers of “Capital,” the main work of the philosopher, identified a number of examples of the deliberate manipulation of facts, namely: using old, outdated at the time of writing data on the situation of workers, deliberate distortion of texts and quotes, presentation of atypical for all industry cases taken from reports of labor inspectors. 
These devious methods were used by imitators of Marx; communist state “philosophers.” It created a special term called the “class-party approach” which means a deliberate manipulation of the facts to obtain conclusions to please the government.
How can you explain this attitude of Marx to the facts? In short, with his personality. The love of truth was not his internal attitude. Instead of a desire to know life; he manifested intellectual malice and rudeness, instead of mental nobility. 
The torch of reason has not been able to burn safely in the strong vortex of his passions.
Again confirmed is the fact that the true scientist is not just a collector of facts, erudite, encyclopedist. He is primarily devoted to the truth man—this is the motive, the driving force behind his research. Such thinkers were Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein. Without this trait, there is no a scientist.
Knowledgeable people are not uncommon in academia, but those who love the truth, those who are willing to sacrifice career, money, comfort are exceptional as large pearls. The selective, biased attitude of Marx to the facts inevitably had an impact on the quality of the philosophical synthesis made by him.The additional negative effect had the arbitrary rejection of a well-tested, secure information as contained in the Bible.
Marx’s parents were Jews and Protestant; both religions based on the Holy Scriptures. Then it is excluded that the philosopher did not know about the Bible. However, he was silent about it and did not rely on the information contained therein. Marx simply did not assess its value nor understood the reason for the drama of Jewish history.Yes, he knew the secular side of Jewry—the cult of money, but is this the only feature of these people?
Did he not hear philosophers speak about the special role allotted to the Jews by God, the guardians of the Word of God, people of the prophets, scribes and priests, people which God works with from ancient time? He had heard those truths, of course, but remained unmoved. The spirit of the Bible had been strange to him, as he remained foreign to the German classical philosophy, idealistic in nature. 
Scientifically, however, it does not remain unpunished. The Bible is not an ordinary book whose rejection can do without or with minor losses. Researchers presented solid evidence that the texts collected here come from the Creator of the universe and the Governor of the human history. Logical unity of the Bible, despite many writers, who lived at different times, in different places and in the presence of numerous real prophecies of major world events—clearly testify of the supernatural Author of the Book. That’s why, rejecting of the Bible means deprivation of unique information, irreplaceable by anything else.
This is even more true when people write about history, about its meaning and its drivers. Can anyone describe the movement of a vessel without taking into account the will of the master? Is a scientist one who takes into account the wind direction, assess the height of the waves, sea currents, but forget the most important thing – that the ship has a captain whose will determines its course? Marx is just such a case! The absence of the crucial information of the Bible make his historical writings one-sided and therefore grossly erroneous, misleading.
In his “Political Philosophy Manuscripts”(1844), he argues for the crucial role of material production in society. There is no dispute that it plays an important role, but the test is whether it is decisive in the end. In his books, The Holy Family (184)5 and German Ideology (1846) Marx developed his materialist understanding of history, later becoming a part of the ideology of communist parties. Here he makes statements like these: “History is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his goals.” “People themselves make their history” and “the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions of life” make history. Big words, pretentious allegations, but are they true?
History knows many examples of individuals and entire nations that with a strong will, huge casualties and colossal work pursued their goals without reaching them. How much effort was cast during the socialist five-year plans, how much paper and verbal energy was spent to educate so-called new man? How many billions were spent on armaments, huge armies, militias and secret services?
What remains of all this? “The people themselves make their history.” Yes, that’s true, but not in the sense that gives Marx. Life teaches otherwise: if people choose to worship God and his commandments, they will have a destiny of happy people. On the contrary, if they choose to despise their Creator and ignore His word, their fate will be different and they themselves will be guilty of it. In this sense, yes, people themselves make their history.
Marx’s theory turned out to be incomplete and inaccurate information. Unfortunately, when an inventor of new social theories creates something wrong, the result is not only a few broken bottles or even a blown laboratory. Damage from the false teachings, one of which was Marxism, can be compared only with the effect from the application of weapons of mass destruction. Marx’s defective theory, a result of a gross misinformation led to the death of millions of people whose sufferings can hardly be described.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1940)
Freud was a doctor neurophysiologist conducting laboratory research on the nervous system of humans. He tried to cure hysteria disease by electroshock, hypnosis, and relaxation of the patient.
Born into a family of wealthy Jews the youth man lived in difficult family relationships but enjoyed the unfailing love of his mother. He was a very good student, featuring unusual curiosity. He married at the age of 30 and had five children.
Freud became an associate professor in 1883 and professor in 1902 in Vienna, where he spent most of his life. During the Nazi occupation of Austria, he lived in London. Freud became famous not so much for his scientific achievements, as with its exotic explanations of internal conflicts and defense mechanisms of the personality, the reasons for nerve disorders, various manifestations of sexual desire. It is the philosophical side of his own scientific activity generates great interest.
Central to Freud’s theory takes the term “psychoanalysis,” understood as a means of explanation and method for the treatment of unconscious mental processes. The personality of the man, according to him consists of three elements; the “id”—an unconscious force that comes from the instinct of life and death, the “ego” —a conscious, rational element seeking only its interest and the “super-ego”—contributed by the public censor of “ego.” The primary is considered the “id”— the sexual; it is considered the reason for various neuroses.
The attitude of the public toward the philosopher is controversial; a brilliant scientist or a surface crook. Regardless of the evaluation, however, his teachings heavily influenced many intellectuals with the lively discussions that had given rise. The person of Freud can be found in his work, Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1932).
The views of the professor about the nature of scientific thinking and truth are classic and characteristic of most naturalists. Scientific thinking is nonprofit, not seeking direct benefit, trying to eliminate subjective factors, check how reliable are sensory perceptions. “The aim is to achieve consistency with reality, ie with what exists outside and independently of us, and as the experience teaches us, it is crucial to making or thwarting our desires. This correspondence with the real external world we call truth.”  Here Freud gives an excellent definition of the scientific method.
Criticism of the so-called anarchist epistemology, which renounces the notion of truth and objectivity of knowledge is devastating. Freud admits that this philosophy may be influenced by anarchism, modern ideology at that time or the theory of relativity in Physics. Intellectual nihilists who develop this philosophy lead to science suicide. They argue that scientific output is only an illusion; we find just what we need, we see only what we want to see. And if the match with the outside world is no longer a criterion for truth, it becomes indifferent to what opinions we stick. All are equally right or equally wrong. No one can blame the other for error. 
Freud notes that the doctrine of the anarchists proved unfit at the first step in life. “If we really don’t care what we think, then would have no knowledge that differs from our other opinions in conformity with reality, and we could build bridges, both of stone and cardboard … to use for narcosis tear gas instead of ether.”  Here the scientist exhibits the excellent common sense of all researchers of nature.
One can not do science if you do not believe in the existence of a real external world and the ability of the human mind to understand its structure. This is a methodological postulate number one in all sciences. Criticism of Marxism; Professor Freud also performed scientific positions. He rejected the claims of Marx that the development of human society is a natural historical process and the social structure varies by dialectics. The psychologist believes these statements reflect the dark Hegelian philosophy influence on Marx. Freud wrote:
We cannot accept that only economic motives determine human behavior in society. Even the undisputed fact that different individuals, races, and nations behave differently under the same economic conditions already excludes the complete rule of the economy factor. It is incomprehensible how can you not pay attention to psychological factors when it comes to the reactions of living human beings; these factors not only participate in the creation of economic relations but also in the dominance of these relationships people can exhibit its primary instincts.
Freud considered sociology as applied psychology and considered illusory Marx’s claim “to change for several generations the human nature so as to obtain almost conflict-free coexistence of people in the new social order and they without any compulsion to take on work tasks.” Today we can definitely say that the recent past has confirmed the correctness of this criticism.
On these topics Freud showed qualities of a true scientist, critical thinking, striving for objective assessment and reporting famous facts.
Unfortunately, he behaved with failure otherwise. Without being familiar with solid historical data, it announced an illusion all knowledge acquired by revelation from God. The therapist confidently stated that “there is no other source for knowledge of the world than the reasonable understanding of carefully verified facts.”  Here the healthy and legitimate skepticism of Freud’s teachings passed in the over criticism of the atheist Freud, who along with the dirty water throws also the baby from the vessel.
Among the shifting sands of dreams, the dim intuition, the tricks of charlatans and the lies of the occultists, the philosopher did not notice the granite rock of the Word of God. He did not know the difference between true prophets of God and fraudsters, he failed in separating truth from falsehood in the spiritual world. Thus the professor deprived himself of a verified source of knowledge and information that predestined failure of his works.
What specifically was the idea of the psychologist of religion? In the preface of the book Totem and Taboo written at the end of 1930, Freud accepts he is completely alien to the religion of his ancestors, as well as any other religion. However, he set out to make an assessment of this phenomenon and morality at all.
Freud acknowledges that “religion is a tremendous force that has power over the strongest feelings of the people,” but despite all his wordiness, he can not explain why this is so. The philosopher thinks that religion was created by someone with a practical purpose “to impress certain ethical rules” of the people.
His teaching of psychoanalysis view explains the origin of religion with the helplessness of mankind even in adulthood maintaining children’s fears, desires, and needs. That Christians call the Creator of the universe, Father. The professor explains simply that the old man remained also as helpless amid the perils of the world as the child. So the mature person resorting to childhood memories of the revered father transfer them to religion. How simple it was! “Faith in God rests on the emotional strength of this memory and the continuing need of protection,”confidently concludes the psychiatrist.
It turns out that the aged, even if his name is Newton, Kepler or Copernicus, according to him, he remains infantile individual, grown in stature, but not in mind. And that atheists like him only reach mental maturity. Others remain children, even to the grave. But there is another explanation: “Whatever direction we take in our research, we find everywhere a clear evidence of a creative Mind, His providence, wisdom, and power.” These are words of the great French chemist Lavoisier. 
“Everything is so good and precise created in our Earth and Galaxy, there must be a Master Designer. There is no other way,” said Wernher von Braun, the famous designer of spacecraft, director of the Apollo program which delivered people to the moon. 
“I say,” Einstein wrote, “that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest of motives for research. One of our contemporaries has said, and not without reason, that in our materialistic century serious scholars can only be deeply religious people.” 
Elmer Engström, a pioneer in the field of color television said:
Man has no reason to believe that the Bible places restrictions on its efforts in science and technology. In fact, so he reads the pattern of the Creator, does nothing new. All processes in nature move not our plan and God’s plan. Yes, I believe that God’s power is complete. His authority is absolute. He is the Creator, Redeemer and manages human life through Christ. 
These and dozens of other scientists Freud lightly declared mentally and psychologically immature: Infanta. Max Born, however, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, thinks otherwise: “Many scientists are religious. Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be somewhat stupid!” 
Religion, continues in the same lecture Freud, not withstand scientific scrutiny, awakens distrust by its miracles. This, according to the professor, issuing the intervention of human fantasy. Explanations bearing the stamp of ancient times. Religion is derived from the ancient totemism, says the psychiatrist with aplomb. Moreover, the comparative study of different religions, their mutual exclusion and intolerance against each other leading to the rejection of faith at all.
It does not seem to have a world power, thinks the professor, who parented watch over the welfare of the individual and brings all his affairs to a happy end. Human destiny is not consistent with the belief in the goodness of the world or in part contradicts faith in his justice. Earthquakes, floods, and fires do not differentiate between good and pious and evil and the infidel.
Moreover, continued Freud, “Far from always rewards virtue and punishes evil, often brutal, wicked, ruthless grab for himself coveted goods and pious remains empty. The human destiny is determined by dark, insensitive and hostile forces; a system of rewards and punishments … does not seem to exist.”
This long quotation was brought because perfectly expresses the course of the thoughts of many, and at first glance, it seems that faithfully reflects things. Miracles, the ancient unscientific views, the presence of many religions, the evil in the world and the seeming impunity of villains—these are all old items concerning even during the earthly life of Jesus Christ.
That is why His response is still valid today: “You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”  Above all, here Freud overestimates the capabilities of human science and underestimates the capabilities of the Creator. With the word “miracle” we humans actually call phenomena that overcome the known physical, chemical, and biological laws.
So walking on water surface as on a solid ground, instant healing of a blind-born man, turning water into wine, the raising of an already decomposing corpse, all this clearly constitute a breach, even complete cancellation of physical, chemical and biological laws related the density, gravity, chemical elements and compounds, biological organs and systems. For the Viennese professor and all unbelievers, it’s fantasy. But for enlightened by God’s Spirit people, whether scientists or uneducated, it is a manifestation of God’s omnipotence.
In fact, there are no “miracles” to the Lord, there are no technical problems. Miracles exist for us, people who through science partially know the nature and through technology also partly we master it. Problems often compelling face our physicists, biologists, chemists, engineers, medical doctors, technicians.
God, blessed be His name, speaks the material universe completely from the outset and at any point in time. The Creator stands above the laws of nature and rules over them in an absolute way, they are subject to Him unconditionally and without exceptions. Moreover, they are created by Him; the works made by the Son of God and other people in His name. Is religion bearing the stamp of ignorance of the ancients? Yes, this is true of all pagan religions, but it is not true for God-given biblical faith.
While ancient philosophies speak of elephants and turtles which sustain the Earth, the book of Job says our planet is hanging on “nothing.”
“I do not know a statement about the origin of the world that is more just from a scientific point of view than that contained in the Bible,” said James Dana, Dean of Geology Faculty of Princeton University. 
Freud was correct that various religions are mutually exclusive. But this does not mean they are all false. It is possible that only one meets reality, and the rest do not. And in fact, this is the case.
Psychotherapist likens religion to neurosis in which civilized man must pass from childhood to adulthood. As pompous as it is false!
Dozens of first class scholars argue the opposite view in relation to Christianity. To the above- mentioned names, we can add those of Faraday, Pascal, Pasteur, Ampere, Mendel, Heisenberg, Planck, Paul and many others. These people the psychiatrist calls suffering from neurosis? The comment is superfluous.
Freud recognized that there is no knowledge to fully address the issue. However, he is convinced that the most in-depth analysis of the religious phenomenon does not disprove his conclusion. What a fallacy! Although Jewish by origin, he does not know the religion of his ancestors. He is unable to distinguish between pagan created beliefs and transmitted by God to the descendants of Abraham faith. Among the many people who inhabit the planet, the Almighty chose a people, enter into a covenant with it and several millennia actively determines its fate.
For this reason, the history of the Jews is called sacred and studying it we can understand who is the true God. Therefore, the book in which we find this story is not an ordinary book.
In its detriment, Sigmund Freud could not appreciate the quality and the exceptional nature of
the information contained therein. Thus the famous psychoanalyst proved worse informed than a most ordinary believer, Jew or Christian, on that vital issue.
 П.Джонсън. Интелектуалците. Изд.”Анубис”, 1994, стр.86. (Paul Johnson. The Intellectuals)
 ib., стр.90.
 ib., стр.95,97,99.
 С.Н.Булгаков. Карл Маркс като религиозен тип. Етюди за религията и богочовечеството. Пловдив, 1909.
 З.Фройд. Въведение в психоанализата. Наука и изкуство, София, 1990, стр.535. (Sigmund Freud. Introduction to Psychoanalysis)
 ib., стр.540.
 ib., стр.541.
 ib., стр.541.
 ib., стр.525.
 С.Попов. Защо вярвам в Бога, стр.295.
 Науката и Бог. Сборник цитати от 53 известни съвременни учени.
 А.Эйнштейн. Собрание научных трудов, т.4, Москва, 1967.
 Науката и Бог. Сборник цитати от 53 известни съвременни учени.
 Науката и Бог. Сборник цитати от 53 известни съвременни учени.
 Matthew 22:29.
 Науката и Бог. Сборник цитати от 53 известни съвременни учени.