The Psychology of Atheism

[notjam]

In this updated, expanded edition, starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion - that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security - Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God.

A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.

Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to atheism is necessary.

“Vitz offers a radical new thesis about the psychological origins of atheism. By studying the lives of numerous famous atheists, from the old atheists Nietzsche, Sartre, and Freud to the new atheists Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennet, Vitz discovers a startling common pattern: atheism arises in people with dead, absent, or abusive fathers. By contrast, prominent defenders of religious belief-including Blaise Pascal, John Henry Newman, and G.K. Chesterton-were blessed with attentive, loving and caring fathers. Vitz's provocative book raises important questions about psychology, religious belief, and the importance of fathers. ”
- Christopher Kaczor, Author, The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church

“Quite simply, Paul Vitz's Faith of the Fatherless is a minor classic, a book that should be on the short list of all those who want to understand, in the deepest terms, the ill effects caused by the failures of fatherhood. Faith of the Fatherless should function as a gateway book to research in all fields examining our current, highly-secularized culture, a culture marked deeply by both unbelief and hostility toward the family and especially fatherhood. ”
- Benjamin Wiker, Author, Architects of the Culture of Death

“In deploying Freudian theory against atheism itself, Paul Vitz has proven beyond a doubt what's missing from secular accounts of secularization: namely, actual human beings. His thesis is intellectual jujutsu of the first order, as anyone reading this timely revisiting will appreciate in full. ”

 

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1586176870

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

That's an interesting theory. I have no idea how true it is, if at all, but I remember very clearly in my early childhood when the topic of gods came up and I had never been taught anything about religion at that point. This is purely anecdotal, but I remember thinking just how ridiculous it sounded to me to believe in magical things that we cannot see. I could also sense how defensive people were about the topic, which made me even more certain. I just told my friend that I didn't think that what he was saying was true, and that there were in fact no gods.

 

There was never any evaluation of any character. I never thought "what a cruel world he hath created for me". I never considered it unfair or felt any resentment toward anyone's gods. It would have made as much sense as being upset with Santa Claus.

 

I also watched my niece who was not raised with any god beliefs and I remember the first time a classmate told her about god, and she told us about it with a confused look, as if to say "how could any thinking person believe this claptrap?"

 

My observation with people who were never raised with propaganda about gods is that they never hear about it and have it make sense to them. It's a completely weird and foreign concept, like "what are you trying to pull here?"

 

Maybe it's true that a number of atheists who were raised with propaganda around gods had psychological motivations to reject that propaganda. Certainly is possible.

 

In any case, psychological motives don't make it false. Nor does it say anything about the actual existence of gods or devils or demons or unicorns.

[shirgall]

I also watched my niece who was not raised with any god beliefs and I remember the first time a classmate told her about god, and she told us about it with a confused look, as if to say "how could any thinking person believe this claptrap?"

 

My observation with people who were never raised with propaganda about gods is that they never hear about it and have it make sense to them. It's a completely weird and foreign concept, like "what are you trying to pull here?"

 

 

My experience is more like your niece's. I come from a pretty long line of atheists, and I have run into plenty of people that assumed I was rebelling against upbringing, and then wondered why I didn't want God if I wasn't rebelling. They don't like the answer, "there's no compelling reason to believe it and plenty of reasons not to."

[Frosty]

I think you'll find if you survey atheists that the predominant reason for their lack of belief in the existence of god is exactly the same as it is for lack of belief in anything else, namely the lack of evidence to support the proposition.

 

This may or may not correlate with things such as abusive or absent fathers, you've not cited any published and peer reviewed evidence for this so I can't comment on that. However even if we hypothetically accept this as true for the sake of argument, it wouldn't alter the validity of the claim of gods existence.

 

The source of the atheism doesn't invalidate the truth value of the claim, evidence is what we use to ascertain the truth value of the claim, anything that's not evidence is just misdirection.

 

Given notjams posting history, I'm relatively sure we're dealing with a subtle troll here, is trolling allowed on the FDR forums?

[shirgall]

Given notjams posting history, I'm relatively sure we're dealing with a subtle troll here, is trolling allowed on the FDR forums?

 

We're pretty easy going on topics and techniques here. For example, it is a no-no to argue about determinism, but it comes up all the time.

 

All it takes to change my mind is credible evidence.