Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayjay · 11-22-2002, 04:45 PM

What do you think about <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html" target="_blank">this article</a>?

Jayjay · 11-22-2002, 05:01 PM

Ah yes... I suppose I should summarize it a little bit, since it's bad etiquette to post just links.

The author of the article tries to explain atheism away with the usual "you are just rebelling against God" tripe. At first he lists a few general reasons (based on his own experiences when he was an atheist), socialization and convenience, to explain it away. I found this part to be fairly accurate, with the exception that it applies equally well to religions. Then the article goes to critque Freud's explanations on the reasons of religion, and I agree with most of that because I think little Siggie was a nutcase. He goes to explain atheism in psychoanalytic terms as a kind of oedipus complex against God the father figure.

Lastly, the author makes up his own hypothesis that atheists all have failure in their relationships to their fathers, and as such are trying to disassociate from them. He cites examples of famous atheists/freethinkers (Marx, Diderot, Voltaire, Sartre, Murray O'Hair, etc.) and shows problematic father-relationships in all these cases. Sounds suspicious, since they're all handpicked examples of famous people.

Thoughts?

Frivolous · 11-22-2002, 07:16 PM

Since god is the Supreme Father, by not believing in him one would expect that these people would have difficulties relating to their fathers

Philosoft · 11-22-2002, 07:16 PM

I think criticising Freud and then likening atheism to a metaphysical Oedipus complex is the very definition of irony.

Eudaimonist · 11-22-2002, 07:52 PM

Psychologizing about one's intellectual opponents is a sign of failure to deal with their arguments.

Even if, in the unlikely chance, all atheists did find deconversion from Christianity psychologically appealing and easy because they had some conflict with their fathers, that doesn't make them wrong in their lack of belief in gods. Atheists are not necessarily irrational to take the position they do, no matter what beliefs (or lack thereof) their emotional state made easy or difficult to accept.

An obvious rebuttal is that if we are to reject the rationality of atheists out of hand, and substitute pure emotionalism to explain their stance, Christians are subject to the same charge. Perhaps their belief in Christianity is merely a desire for a father figure in their life... blah, blah, blah.

Hypernovean · 11-22-2002, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Lastly, the author makes up his own hypothesis that atheists all have failure in their relationships to their fathers, and as such are trying to disassociate from them. He cites examples of famous atheists/freethinkers (Marx, Diderot, Voltaire, Sartre, Murray O'Hair, etc.) and shows problematic father-relationships in all these cases. Sounds suspicious, since they're all handpicked examples of famous people.

I agree that sounds suspicious; I don't have any problems with my father (beyond the normal), and I'm an atheist. I certainly never saw god as a father figure. I'm sure a lot of other atheists are in the same position. Unless he organized a wide-scale survey, that arguement is worth nothing; and a survey would most likely invalidate it anyway, so either way, it seems wrong.

Shake · 11-23-2002, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Then the article goes to critque Freud's explanations on the reasons of religion, and I agree with most of that because I think little Siggie was a nutcase. He goes to explain atheism in psychoanalytic terms as a kind of oedipus complex against God the father figure.

Lastly, the author makes up his own hypothesis that atheists all have failure in their relationships to their fathers, and as such are trying to disassociate from them. He cites examples of famous atheists/freethinkers (Marx, Diderot, Voltaire, Sartre, Murray O'Hair, etc.) and shows problematic father-relationships in all these cases. Sounds suspicious, since they're all handpicked examples of famous people.

So he critiques Freud and then goes into a classic Freud argument? Sounds inconsistent at best. I'm still looking over the full text of the article, just basing this response on your summary.

Shake · 11-23-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jayjay:
<strong>What do you think about <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html" target="_blank">this article</a>?</strong>

I respectfully think Professor Vitz is full of shit! As I've been skimming through the article, I realize his thesis may be based on his own personal problems as he mentions personal examples several times in the first few pages. Also, he seems to imply that we all really want to accept God, but for us atheists, we are too weak to overcome the "barriers" to accepting God in our lives!

He claims to have been an atheist, but then states that he did this mainly for social reasons. Sounds to me like someone has (or had) some issues with acceptance and low self-esteem! <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> He also states that he in part turned to atheism out of convenience. Hmmm ... so he was lazy on top of everything else?! Interestingly, Professor Vitz offers no clue about his relationship with his own father.

As for me, I can say that my father had a strong hand in pushing me towards my own atheism, but it was not my rejection of him or hatred for him. Far from it, I have always loved my father and he's always been loving and supportive of me in all my endeavors. So I, too, think that this 'defective father' theory is a load of crap. As I have stated in the various "Atheist testimony" style threads that surface here from time to time, the way my father pushed me towards atheism was by instilling in me the need to think for yourself, question things, and form your own opinions and beliefs about the world.

Carlos · 11-23-2002, 01:06 PM

I've skimmed the article, but base my response on your synopsis.

Some of what Vitz says applies to my life. Given where I am now, it is socially acceptable to be an atheist. It is also personally convenient. While my relationship with my father is not a failure, I do not treat him as an infallible source of wisdom or security; I assert my independence. Even if all of Vitz's indicators applied to me, though, it would not be right to assume that they led to my atheism. Vitz is pointing out correlation and calling it causation.

IMO, there is an important middle step that Vitz missed. In social circles where atheism is acceptable, we are less afraid to question belief. In cases where there is no strong father figure, we are left to make our own decisions. These situations force us to think for ourselves and assume personal responsibility. Many of us choose this as a time to apply reason. Are the communities where theism thrives organized the same way? Do they even have a choice?

That's where the major difference lies. It always irks me that "their camp" treats "our camp" as equals when it comes to indoctrination. Do they assume that, much like they do, we just force our beliefs onto others, leaving no alternative? Unlike them, we not only allow debate, we encourage it.

Vitz actually wrote a book on the subject (Faith of the Fatherless). According to his <a href="http://www.psych.nyu.edu/people/faculty/vitz/" target="_blank">homepage</a>, though, he has not written on this topic in any peer reviewed publications. Probably part of the vast atheist psychologist social conspiracy.

lpetrich · 11-23-2002, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Frivolous:
<strong>Since god is the Supreme Father ...</strong>

Frivolous, is there also a Supreme Mother?

11-22-2002, 04:45 PM	#1
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	The Psychology of Atheism What do you think about <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html" target="_blank">this article</a>?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-22-2002, 05:01 PM	#2
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	Ah yes... I suppose I should summarize it a little bit, since it's bad etiquette to post just links. The author of the article tries to explain atheism away with the usual "you are just rebelling against God" tripe. At first he lists a few general reasons (based on his own experiences when he was an atheist), socialization and convenience, to explain it away. I found this part to be fairly accurate, with the exception that it applies equally well to religions. Then the article goes to critque Freud's explanations on the reasons of religion, and I agree with most of that because I think little Siggie was a nutcase. He goes to explain atheism in psychoanalytic terms as a kind of oedipus complex against God the father figure. Lastly, the author makes up his own hypothesis that atheists all have failure in their relationships to their fathers, and as such are trying to disassociate from them. He cites examples of famous atheists/freethinkers (Marx, Diderot, Voltaire, Sartre, Murray O'Hair, etc.) and shows problematic father-relationships in all these cases. Sounds suspicious, since they're all handpicked examples of famous people. Thoughts?

11-22-2002, 07:16 PM	#3
Frivolous Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 101	Since god is the Supreme Father, by not believing in him one would expect that these people would have difficulties relating to their fathers

11-22-2002, 07:16 PM	#4
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I think criticising Freud and then likening atheism to a metaphysical Oedipus complex is the very definition of irony.

11-22-2002, 07:52 PM	#5
Eudaimonist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Sundsvall, Sweden Posts: 3,159	Psychologizing about one's intellectual opponents is a sign of failure to deal with their arguments. Even if, in the unlikely chance, all atheists did find deconversion from Christianity psychologically appealing and easy because they had some conflict with their fathers, that doesn't make them wrong in their lack of belief in gods. Atheists are not necessarily irrational to take the position they do, no matter what beliefs (or lack thereof) their emotional state made easy or difficult to accept. An obvious rebuttal is that if we are to reject the rationality of atheists out of hand, and substitute pure emotionalism to explain their stance, Christians are subject to the same charge. Perhaps their belief in Christianity is merely a desire for a father figure in their life... blah, blah, blah.

11-23-2002, 01:06 PM	#9
Carlos Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 545	I've skimmed the article, but base my response on your synopsis. Some of what Vitz says applies to my life. Given where I am now, it is socially acceptable to be an atheist. It is also personally convenient. While my relationship with my father is not a failure, I do not treat him as an infallible source of wisdom or security; I assert my independence. Even if all of Vitz's indicators applied to me, though, it would not be right to assume that they led to my atheism. Vitz is pointing out correlation and calling it causation. IMO, there is an important middle step that Vitz missed. In social circles where atheism is acceptable, we are less afraid to question belief. In cases where there is no strong father figure, we are left to make our own decisions. These situations force us to think for ourselves and assume personal responsibility. Many of us choose this as a time to apply reason. Are the communities where theism thrives organized the same way? Do they even have a choice? That's where the major difference lies. It always irks me that "their camp" treats "our camp" as equals when it comes to indoctrination. Do they assume that, much like they do, we just force our beliefs onto others, leaving no alternative? Unlike them, we not only allow debate, we encourage it. Vitz actually wrote a book on the subject (Faith of the Fatherless). According to his <a href="http://www.psych.nyu.edu/people/faculty/vitz/" target="_blank">homepage</a>, though, he has not written on this topic in any peer reviewed publications. Probably part of the vast atheist psychologist social conspiracy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.