I am a neuroscientist.I make a living by studying how the brain works.Although neuroscience has taken huge strides forward in the past decade , it is a long way from being able to address the problems dealt with by psychotherapy.3) Neuroscience cannot yet explain how we feel , and it is a long way from being able to prescribe what a miserable person must do to feel better.So , as a neuroscientist , I feel I should have a conclusion about the alternative approach. The first question I must answer is :“ What do psychotherapies have to offer? ” First , let us deal with the scientific angle.The best way to start is by assessing a claim that has cropped up several times over the year.It was first made of psychoanalysis , but it has been extended to other psychotherapies.It is the claim that psychoanalysis is the successor to religion , that it gives a scientific , rather than a superstitious , answer to the question of how best to lead a happy , fulfilled life. I would say this claim is at best half right.Psychoanalysis may indeed answer the question of how best to lead a happy life , but it has a lot more in common with religion than it has with science.In fact , psychoanalysis is not the successor to religion , it is just another religion. This assessment is based on the way religions and sciences deal with fundamental truths.In religions , truths are laid down by God and revealed to the prophets who , in their turn , pass them on to the faithful.They are sacred mysteries that cannot be questioned.In science , on the other hand , truths are nothing if not questionable.The laws of science are deduced from the results of experiments and can be used to predict new experimental results.If new results go against the prediction , they show the law to be false.A new experimental result , or a new theory for deriving predictions from the results , can change the accepted truths.If a scientific statement cannot , in principle , be proved wrong then it tells us nothing. Psychoanalysis suffers from just this problem.4)It is a maxim that our psychological problems are rooted in past conflicts , and that the repressed memories of these conflicts emerge from the unconscious in coded forms that can be interpreted by the analyst.But the codes are so obscure and so flexible that they defy rational explanation.There is no way the maxims could be disproved.They may not be sacred , but they are definitely mysteries. Many other therapies are based on untestable theories.Of course , that doesn ’ t necessarily prevent them from working.There is no doubt thousands of people feel that psychoanalysis has helped them to lead fuller and happier lives.But the number of satisfied customers is no guide to scientific validity;if it were , religion would come out way ahead.