On Atheism

[betsy]

The Psychology of Atheism

Dr. Paul Vitz

September 24, 1997

These are notes of the lecture taken by an audience member.

The talk was meant as an encapsulation of a book on which Dr. Vitz has

been working and that he intends to publish in a year. The talk takes

the opposite apprach to that usually taken in psychology and much

linked to its origin: explaining religious belief.

The concepts of psychology are two-edge swords that can explain not

only religious belief, but also the lack of belief.

He makes two assumptions about atheism:

1. major barriers to belief are non-rational, that is, psychological

2. all of us have a free choice to reject or accept God

The point is to identify factors that predispose one to atheism.

First, Dr. Vitz elaborated on the simpler, more shallow reasons for

atheism.

He reviewed his own personal story as an example. He was raised with

a somewhat Christian upbringing in Ohio, but became an atheist in

college at age 18 , and remained so until the age of 38, when he

converted, or re-converted to Christianity. Reflection on his own

life showed him that his reasons for being an atheist were

superficial.

Superficial reasons for atheism:

1. General Socialization-- social unease

e.g. Vitz is from the Mid-west, which is boring and he wanted

to be comfortable in the glamorous secular world.

Voltaire was embarrassed of his provincial origin

cf. flight from Jewish ghetto or fundamentalist Southern

background

2. Desire to be accepted by powerful and influential professors.

He noted that his professors at Stanford animadverted on every

psychological topic, but were united in two things: professional

ambition and disbelief in God.

3. Personal convenience.

Belief in God means having to give up pleasures and free time.

Mortimer Adler, in his How to Think about God, leaves the

impression the the main obstacle to belief for him lies in his own

will.

Next, Dr. Vitz moved on to the deeper psychological reasons some

people do not believe in God. He reviewed Freud's critique of belief,

his projection theory: human beings are weak and need protection so

they project their need by concocting an all-powerful father figure,

God.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt

[betsy]

FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS: The Psychology of Atheism

by Paul Vitz (Spence, 2000, from AD Books)

Around ten years ago Paul Johnson wrote his thought-provoking Intellectuals in which he examined the personal lives of some famous Western thinkers, such as Rousseau and Marx. He noted that many of these great intellectuals had private lives that left a lot to be desired. He noted, in other words, a connection between belief and behaviour.

In Faith of the Fatherless Paul Vitz provides a similar kind of study. He examines the lives of a number of well-known atheists, and discovers that most of them had an absent or abusive father. He argues that those who have had poor relations with their earthly father also tend to have had a poor image of their heavenly Father.

Dr Vitz first examines those atheists whose fathers died when they were relatively young - atheists such as Nietzsche, Sartre and Bertrand Russell. Then he assesses atheists who had weak or abusive fathers, e.g., Voltaire, Feuerbach and Freud. Finally, as a control group, he studies some notable theists and their fathers - men such as Edmund Burke, Pascal, Chesterton and John Henry Newman.

These psychological profiles make a strong case for his main thesis - fathers matter, and the world-view we carry with us into adulthood is largely determined in childhood. With the resurgence of the fatherhood movement, especially in America, this is all the more timely. Ideas do have consequences, and our ideas are heavily influenced by our upbringing. Thus the importance of a good upbringing - one that includes a mother and a father.

Multitude of factors

The author warns about over- simplification, and recognises that there are a multitude of factors that explain or determine how we develop. However, the fact that so many atheists have similar backgrounds does make for an intriguing hypothesis. And the details Vitz provides are quite revealing. Consider but a few examples.

H. G. Wells was contemptuous of both his father and God. He wrote this in his autobiography: "My father was always at cricket, and I think [mum] realised more and more acutely as the years dragged on without material alleviation, that Our Father and Our Lord, on whom to begin with she had perhaps counted unduly, were also away - playing perhaps at their own sort of cricket in some remote quarter of the starry universe."

Jean-Paul Sartre's father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. His philosophy promotes the idea that man can become God, that we are self-made men. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father.

While Vitz does note some exceptions to the pattern, he emphasises the fact that this missing ingredient of fatherhood does have a profound impact on the way people develop and what they believe in. He concludes: "Since both believers and non-believers in God have psychological reasons for their position - in any debate as to the truth of the existence of God, psychology should be irrelevant." Truth, facts, and the evidence should decide that question, not personality.

However, "it seems clear from the kinds of evidence I have cited that many an intense personal 'reason' lies behind the public rejection of God ... Aside from the common superficial reasons, most serious unbelievers are likely to have painful memories underlying their rationalisation of atheism. Such interior wounds are not irrelevant and need to be fully appreciated and addressed by believers."

As this book makes clear, there is a real correlation between personal psycho-history and belief systems. Of course, such childhood backgrounds are not fully determinative - people can and do change, rising above their circumstances and backgrounds. However, this book helps us to understand the passion and vehemence of some atheists, and shows us that philosophies can be as much a product of our social background as of hard reasoning.

Bill Muehlenberg, a Baptist, is National Secretary of the Australian Family Association and teaches theology at several Protestant Bible colleges in Melbourne.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/mar2002p16_955.html

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear betsy,

Since I am an agnostic, I view atheism and theism, or any kind of deism, as equal. They are a faith, a belief in an answer, one way or another. "Is there a god?" If you answer yes or no, you are are saying that you know the unknowable. While I don't doubt that certain traumatic experiences may lead one to the convictions of atheism, as per your articles, I say it is equally fallacious to give an unprovable answer either way.

[DarkAngel_]

lets see... my dad left our family when i was 11 months old i think.

i was raised a morman, and yes around paligamy, and yes it's gross.

i turned to god as my father, he was, kinda a father figure, so i was alittle coo-coo in the head (kinda thought i was jesus or something like that)

went to school, and stopped going, so got a psyco-analisis: i was crazy!

school testing said other wise, but all i was doing was lying to myself, to lie to others.

or at least thatsa what they said.

was in these religions the whole time: mormon, christian, Cherokee indian, bha hi (or how ever its spelt)

atheist, ageist, atheist/chatlic, atheist.

weird or what, as per event, i hade faith, as per event: i found selfish reasons to be self absorbed, now i have other reasons to exist, i went crazy 2 years ago! cant you tell!!

any way, i had and have a life, but just 1 life, though thats all it takes for change, so... i'm atheist because i have not been shown there is a god, and i wish to see change, religion is my mist, i don't see past it, so i use my senses as my light, with them i can see, but not too far, i can't trust my eye's as well as trusting the poisonus types!

my holiday is joy for all you who find what i'm looking for, i hope i find something for all of you, just as well, i'm still crazy! i know this, and am not to proud of it, but am happy to be who i am now, so can tell you who i was...

atheists, mostly, might have problems, but look at paligamists, much worse.

as good as that was, maybe i can also state that it was said that "insanity is to know the face of god"

you obviously have not met my uncle, scary.

also 1 more excuse to be atheist

god cheese burger

like i had a choice....

[betsy]

Theloniusfleabag and Dark Angel, thank you for replying.

Yes, I agree that it is equally a belief. I was born to a belief and a religion.

I am curious as to how atheists and agnostics have come to have their belief. Were they born to it?

And if not, how were they introduced to it? What had convinced them to turn to it?

[Black Dog]

Since I am an agnostic, I view atheism and theism, or any kind of deism, as equal. They are a faith, a belief in an answer, one way or another. "Is there a god?" If you answer yes or no, you are are saying that you know the unknowable. While I don't doubt that certain traumatic experiences may lead one to the convictions of atheism, as per your articles, I say it is equally fallacious to give an unprovable answer either way.

I've always thought the idea that atheism itself is a form of faith to be a lot of hooey, nor do I believe the existence of god is unknowable. There's simply no compelling reason for me to believe in God any more than there is a compelling reason to believe in Wotan, Osiris, Saturn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Indeed to accept the possibility of God is to accept the possibility of all kinds of crazy and contradictory crap. The agnostic position is a cop-out.

[stignasty]

If there is a god, he's doing a terrible job. Yet I'm told that this god is all powerful and all knowing. Make all the excuses you like about satan and so on, if god was all powerful and all knowing we would be living in Eden.

Unless god speaks from the heavens an announces his presence to all humanity, that's reason enough for me not to believe. Apologists like Dr. Vitz can theorize all they like. It's that simple for me.

[betsy]

If there is a god, he's doing a terrible job. Yet I'm told that this god is all powerful and all knowing. Make all the excuses you like about satan and so on, if god was all powerful and all knowing we would be living in Eden.

Unless god speaks from the heavens an announces his presence to all humanity, that's reason enough for me not to believe. Apologists like Dr. Vitz can theorize all they like. It's that simple for me.

How were you introduced to atheism? Were you young when you were introduced to it? What particularly convinced you?

[Drea]

Theloniusfleabag and Dark Angel, thank you for replying.

Yes, I agree that it is equally a belief. I was born to a belief and a religion.

I am curious as to how atheists and agnostics have come to have their belief. Were they born to it?

And if not, how were they introduced to it? What had convinced them to turn to it?

Usually (and of course I speak only for myself and those I know personally) atheism is the product of logical thought and the need for "theories" to be proven (like gravity) before they are "believed in". That being said, Darwin's theory of macro evolution has not been proven and therefore is suspect imo.

Most of us were brought up with some kind of religion. Those of us who reject it do so out of logical thought and the acquiescence of knowledge.

[Michael Hardner]

Dr. Paul Vitz seems to be psychoanalyzing atheists in order to discredit atheism. We also see a lot of character assasination of religious people.

Neither one of these tacks should persuade anyone as to the validity of either atheism or theism, though. Thelonius is right, ie. there is no tower of Babel, you can't prove or disprove God...

[kimmy]

H. G. Wells was contemptuous of both his father and God. He wrote this in his autobiography: "My father was always at cricket, and I think [mum] realised more and more acutely as the years dragged on without material alleviation, that Our Father and Our Lord, on whom to begin with she had perhaps counted unduly, were also away - playing perhaps at their own sort of cricket in some remote quarter of the starry universe."

Jean-Paul Sartre's father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. His philosophy promotes the idea that man can become God, that we are self-made men. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father.

The mechanic says, “If you’re male and you’re Christian and living in America, your father is your model for God. And if you never know your father, if your father bails out or dies or is never at home, what do you believe about God?

...

How Tyler saw it was that getting God’s attention for being bad was better than getting no attention at all. Maybe because God’s hate is better than His indifference.

If you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?

We are God’s middle children, according to Tyler Durden, with no special place in history and no special attention.

Unless we get God’s attention, we have no hope of damnation or redemption.

Which is worse, hell or nothing?

Only if we’re caught and punished can we be saved.

“Burn the Louvre,” the mechanic says, “and wipe your ass with the Mona Lisa. This way at least, God would know our names.”

Fight Club pwns Dr Vitz.

I'm with T-bag in the agnostic camp in that I couldn't firmly say that there's no god... but I also agree with BD that there's no compelling reason to believe in a god, either. Perhaps the argument would be similar to the hypothetical question, "what if all of this is just the elaborate fantasy in the mind of a butterfly on a planet on the other side of the universe?" (I'm sure I've heard that question posed somewhere, but I don't know where or in what context. Can someone enlighten me?) There might not be any conclusive way to prove this *isn't* the dream of some hypothetical space butterfly, but there's no rational reason to believe that it is, either.

From an agnostic point of view, "god" could include God, Wotan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the hypothetical space-butterfly, and pretty much any other unknowable, unprovable belief in the origins of ourselves or our world.

And btw, I disagree that people don't believe in god because they had lousy fathers. My dad's an awesome dad.

-k

[betsy]

Most of us were brought up with some kind of religion. Those of us who reject it do so out of logical thought and the acquiescence of knowledge.

Yes I can relate to that. My older sister seeked tons of logical answers and eventually turned away from Christianity. She embraced another belief that practiced transcendental meditation.

[myata]

I do not consider atheism as a mission to disprove the existence of God(s). More like a commitment to accept any viewpoint only on a platform of conscious and rational evaluation. From this point of view, I don't really care which God and how someone believes in, only about their actions whether inspired by their beliefs or not.

For the author of the pseudo-scientific text cited in the opening post I suggest this simple experiment: take a statistically significant number of children that are being brought up in non-religious (but neither agressively atheist) background, wait for them to grow up, sort out those who went through abnormal events, and see how many end up adepts of any religion. Unless he comes up with convincing statistical results, we can safely write it of as quite meaningless.

[Black Dog]

How were you introduced to atheism? Were you young when you were introduced to it? What particularly convinced you?

I wasn't "introduced to atheism". It was the logical result of being exposed to a not-particularily vigorous or demanding religious regime through school and family and finding it added up to a bunch of bunk.

Yes I can relate to that. My older sister seeked tons of logical answers and eventually turned away from Christianity. She embraced another belief that practiced transcendental meditation.

I find spiritualism is not a rejection of religion so much as a rejection of rigid religious doctrines. IMV, they are equally bogus.

There's no world but this.

[Remiel]

What would be the point of making a " perfect universe " , stignasty?

Also, I should point out that atheism, agnosticism and theism are all very specific in what they define. They are not general terms, like we tend to use them. If you only sort of fit the definition of any of them, there is probably another term out there.

Lastly... Why say there is no world but this? At the very least, there must be other living beings somewhere out there. The disbelief in aliens completely illogical. Wouldn't " There is no existence but this one. " be more precise?

[ClearWest]

If there is a god, he's doing a terrible job. Yet I'm told that this god is all powerful and all knowing. Make all the excuses you like about satan and so on, if god was all powerful and all knowing we would be living in Eden.

You could also say that if a teacher was any good, all his/her students would have A's. But it doesn't work that way. The student has free agency to do well or to do poorly. The bad in our world is a result of our negative choices.

[Black Dog]

Lastly... Why say there is no world but this? At the very least, there must be other living beings somewhere out there. The disbelief in aliens completely illogical. Wouldn't " There is no existence but this one. " be more precise?

What your phrase has in accuracy it lacks in poetry.

[Charles Anthony]

I can understand not believing in God but I wonder: is there a natural explanation for human evil?

Does the Devil exist?

On a related note: Good things require hard work. Bad things come easy.

If you want fresh water, you have to manage a rain barrel or reservoir.

Whereas one drop of slime poisons all of the water.

If you want to eat, you have to cultivate the fields.

Wherease weeds grow rampantly.

If you want shelter, you have to build a house.

Whereas one match can bring the whole house down.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Does the Devil exist?

From the Tom Waits song "Heartattack and Vine"...

"Don't you know there ain't no Devil,

There's just God when he's drunk"

Usually 'evil' is that which opposes scripture, but for us secular types, it is that which is amoral.

Black Dog,

I wasn't "introduced to atheism". It was the logical result of being exposed to a not-particularily vigorous or demanding religious regime through school and family and finding it added up to a bunch of bunk.

I agree, my agnosticism comes from my studies in philosophy and logic. As to this, however,

The agnostic position is a cop-out.

I have to disagree. I logically don't know the answer, so it would be more of a 'cop-out' to simply pick one or the other and believe in it without proof. I simply admit that I don't know the answer, and either one is possible. In fact, to the question "Is there a god?" and of the answers 'yes or no', one of them must be true, but I don't know which one and don't really care.

As Mr. Hardner states,

Dr. Paul Vitz seems to be psychoanalyzing atheists in order to discredit atheism. We also see a lot of character assasination of religious people

. I would agree with that assessment. I would think that in some cases, it would be exactly true, but in others, such as kimmy and myself who loved our fathers, critical examination has led us to our beliefs, not Oedipal/Electral complexes or patricidal fantasy.

Drea,

Those of us who reject it do so out of logical thought and the acquiescence of knowledge.

I believe that this should read 'to knowledge' (if you mean empiricism).

[August1991]

Good things require hard work. Bad things come easy.

That's not true. Sunlight is plentiful, free and wonderful. A well hummed tune is a delight and a genuine smile requires no hard work.

The agnostic position is a cop-out.

I have to disagree. I logically don't know the answer, so it would be more of a 'cop-out' to simply pick one or the other and believe in it without proof. I simply admit that I don't know the answer, and either one is possible.

I'm with Thelonious on this. When I don't know the answer to a question, I don't think it's a cop out to say "I don't know".

I understand the question: on one hand there is faith providing belief in God and on the other, there is a rational conclusion that God doesn't exist. Both strike me as using a premise to prove the premise.

I'll add two other points to this discussion.

First, quite apart from God, organized religion is too often politics by another name. It is a pernicious from of extortion to threaten someone with eternal damanation if they don't do as they're told. Any business that operated that way would be charged with fraud.

Second, religious people have children and suffer less from depression and existential crises. They are more strongly connected to the past and in particular the future.

[myata]

If there is a god, he's doing a terrible job. Yet I'm told that this god is all powerful and all knowing. Make all the excuses you like about satan and so on, if god was all powerful and all knowing we would be living in Eden.

You could also say that if a teacher was any good, all his/her students would have A's. But it doesn't work that way. The student has free agency to do well or to do poorly. The bad in our world is a result of our negative choices.

Then ... if all that happens in this world is the result of our choices ... why do we need the concept of God? What does it add to this world?

If one can make bad choices bypassing God's will, one should be able to make good ones too - all without any divine interference. What is it that existence of God would have added to this picture?

[Charles Anthony]

Sunlight is plentiful, free and wonderful.

Hm..... citation?

Then ... if all that happens in this world is the result of our choices ... why do we need the concept of God? What does it add to this world?

To provide direction towards good choices.

If one can make bad choices bypassing God's will, one should be able to make good ones too - all without any divine interference. What is it that existence of God would have added to this picture?

To stop people from thinking that it is possible to get away with crime.

[Black Dog]

thelonious/August:

I have to disagree. I logically don't know the answer, so it would be more of a 'cop-out' to simply pick one or the other and believe in it without proof. I simply admit that I don't know the answer, and either one is possible. In fact, to the question "Is there a god?" and of the answers 'yes or no', one of them must be true, but I don't know which one and don't really care.

I'm with Thelonious on this. When I don't know the answer to a question, I don't think it's a cop out to say "I don't know".

I should have been clearer, I suppose. I see the cop-out as when one draws an equvilance between the atheist position and the deist or religious position, which strikes me as an attempt to invalidate both and to justify a position in the middle purely on the merit of not being on either edge. Simply saying "I don't know" is different, as it is simply an admission that, well, you don't know.

I was an agnostic long before I became an atheist, mostly in deference to my upbringing. For me, it was a safe, middle ground, but in the end, saying "I don't know" was simply a way for me to duck a conclusion I had really already arrived at.

[cybercoma]

Dear betsy,

Since I am an agnostic, I view atheism and theism, or any kind of deism, as equal. They are a faith, a belief in an answer, one way or another. "Is there a god?" If you answer yes or no, you are are saying that you know the unknowable. While I don't doubt that certain traumatic experiences may lead one to the convictions of atheism, as per your articles, I say it is equally fallacious to give an unprovable answer either way.

On a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being complete unquestionable faith in a God and 1 being complete unquestionable faith that there is no God, would you consider a 2 or 3 on the scale as agnostic still? Or if someone says, there very likely is no God and I live my life as though there weren't, do you consider them atheist?

I would say they're atheist and I think it would be silly to make an absolute assumption either way about the existence of God; however, I'm confident enough in the science of the last 100 years to say that there almost certainly is no God. Although I'm willing to change my mind in light of new evidence to the contrary, because unquestioning faith is stupid, I'd still consider myself on this day to be an atheist.

[cybercoma]

Second, religious people have children and suffer less from depression and existential crises. They are more strongly connected to the past and in particular the future.

And it has been supposed that it's not just religious people who suffer less from depression, but anyone who goes out to a social group once a week. Is the lower depression a result of religion itself or a by-product of the social aspect of congregating?