At the minute I'm reading Eric Fromm's Psychoanalysis and Religion, he considers both Freud and Jung, while I think he is fair in some respects to each of them Freud comes of better, Freud's own perspective in The Future of an Illusion corresponds to Fromm's own pretty much.
Fromm believes that religious impulses are innate, that everyone is compelled to seek both a frame of ethical orientation and an object of devotion, this he describes as a religious impulse and rationalises that a lot of what passes for ideology, even relationships or compulsions are on closer inspection "religions".
This position he believes differs from Jung and Freud. He describes Freud as conceptualising religion, in particular monotheism, as having arose as a consequence overwhelming affect, which could only be coped with by an equally powerful affect, reason was insufficient. He describes Jung as describing religion as corresponding to devotional needs, submission to a higher power but mainly takes issue with subjectivity and objectivity of belief systems in Jung (I think he's a little unfair but all the same).
The thing about Fromm is he's very clearly in some of his books an athiest, does not believe in a God or afterlife, although in some of his books he appears to be more of a non-theist, doesnt discount an afterlife but emphasises the reality of death as an end to all intents and purposes of this life, for the individual and others affectively attached to them. In part I think this is a result of his attachment to Zen Buddhism and non-theist faiths of this kind.