[137] devaluates the meaning of such a love^a relationship, I hope those of you who have had an experience of a love relationship would reject that with great passion--not with fanaticism (that would show that you feel not very safe), but you would reject it with great passion, you would simply say: this is absurd; the value, the meaning, of this relationship, IN ITSELF, is independent of all those bearers which are, genetically speaking, responsible for it. You would not deny that the biological chemist shows all the chemical conditions which are necessary to drive man to woman and woman to man. You must accept them. They are the bearers of every love relationship in this realm. And you would NOT deny the psychologist to speak about the father-and-mother bondage, and the image which you seek unconsciously in choosing the object of your love--why should you? This is all true. Nevertheless, then finally there is love^b, and whether it is long or short, in the moment in which it does exist, it is a reality in itself, and no genetic interpretation of it can deprive it of its validity. Now the same thing is true of religion^c, i.e., of the state of being ultimately concerned. In this state ALSO, all the chemical and physical presuppostions [sic.] are present; you cannot deny them. And there are other things present which often have been used in order to devaluate the meaning of religion. Here the genetic theory has taken the form of psychological or sociological explaining-away the content of religion. The psychological form, in primitive ages (I mean 50 years ago), had the form of saying that the gods are the creations of fear; and today, in a less primitive atmosphere in this respect, it is the father-image which is projected^d and made into a god. I think this is also very primitive, insofar as it is not even technically exact, because you cannot project anything without a