Mageth

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum:

I was listening to D. James Kennedy on the radio on the way to work today, who was interviewing a Paul Vitz, PhD (a professor of psychology at New York University) who has written a book titled "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism." In it he makes the astounding (to me, anyway) that "the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but can be called, in a general sense, psychological," generally relating atheism to missing, weak or abusive fathers. His methodology seems to have been reviewing the life stories of several more or less notable "atheists" (he includes Hitler!) and theists, and concluding from his study that atheists, particularly "militant" atheists, are likely to have had poor or no fahter figures, while strong theists are likely to have had strong father figures. Here are three reviews for more info (from shortest to longest, and of varying degrees of criticality):

<a href="http://www.irr.org/fatherless.html" target="_blank">First review</a>
<a href="http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/mar2002p16_955.html" target="_blank">Second review</a>
<a href="http://www.irr.org/fatherless.html" target="_blank">Third review</a>

Note that on the radio, Vitz and Kennedy were far more definite about his hypothesis than some of the reviews make it sound like he is in the book.

I can speak for myself that I had a strong christian father figure. Four out of six siblings in my family are theists, two are not (I'm an atheist and one sibling is agnostic). From my time on this board I don't think this is an uncommon scenario. So I suspect Vitz's selection process for anecdotal atheists and theists may have been biased (<a href="http://www.addall.com/Browse/Detail/1890626252.html" target="_blank">This link</a> lists the exemplary persons he chose to include.)

Another item to note is that many theists downplay psychological aspects of religion and religious propensities - at least when it doesn't paint them in a good light.

So, what do you think? Is a weak or missing father a strong influence on god-belief? Is Vitz being disingenuous?

Someone7

Hitler wasn't an atheist.

<a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html" target="_blank">http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html</a>
<a href="http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html" target="_blank">http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html</a>
<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html</a>
<a href="http://www.kwdavids.net/hitler.html" target="_blank">http://www.kwdavids.net/hitler.html</a>
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/violence.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/violence.html</a>

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Someone7 ]</p>

Secular Elation

What's bothersome to me is that some people lauded the book at Amazon.com, for obvious reasons.

I am a solid atheist, but a "father figure" has had no effect on it. However, it is interesting to note that I grew up with my mother alone, with a boyfriend of hers here and there. But trust me, my atheism came from my natural rejection from my disagreements with religion.

Jamie_L

Haven't people made this exact same claim about homosexuality?

Furthermore, who cares? It may actually be true that in some cases poor father-figure relationships can lead to atheism. Does this have any relevance to wether or not atheism is reasonable? No.

It's like saying that being raised in a city makes one more likely to be a Democrat. Even if true, it has no bearing on the merits of being a Democrat.

Jamie

Mageth

Good points, Jamie_L et al.

Very few would dispute the assertion that growing up in a theistic family/society strongly influences one's theistic beliefs in adulthood. An interesting study might be to do a comparative study of "healthy" atheistic/agnostic and theistic familes to compare the adult religiosity of the children. If children with strong non-theistic fathers tended to develop strong god-belief, then there might be something to the assertions made in the book. Not likely, IMO.

Alonzo Fyfe

Another study has demonstrated that Catholics, particularly the more devout Catholics, show symptoms of Obsessive/Compulsive disorder. What conclusions should we draw from this?

Also, if having a strong father figure causes one to believe in God, does this call into question disbelief in God, or the merits of having a strong father figure?

Maybe we need a study on the effects of having a strong father figure on the development of obsessive/compulsive disorder.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Kachana

This book is not taken seriously in the psychological community, it's methodlogy is lamentable. Vitz hasn't produced any rigorous empirical studies that have been published in journals on this issue (he's very much of the psychoanalytic persuasion), and his research history seems very poor (e.g. a few papers in tiny journals such as Psychology and Theology since his PhD in 1962).

Just for fun, check out this article of his:

The vicissitudes of original sin. Journal of Psychology and Theology., 17, 9-12 (1989)

Here he argues that "original sin has its psychological origin in primary narcissism. [Vitz] assumes a developmental approach to original sin and suggests that oedipally based sinfulness is one of the distinct expressions of original sin."

There's also a reply to this paper in the same journal, titled Christianity and psychoanalysis: Original sin--oedipal or preoedipal, in which the authors explain how Vitz:

"compares Freud's Oedipus complex to original sin and proposes Jesus as the perfect model for the removal of the Oedipus structure."

They explain how this theory from Vitz and his colleagues has:

"Structural and conceptual problems [which] include inconsistency in their use and application of Freud's oedipal theory, their application of the oedipal concept to Christianity, and their use of the model of the original oedipal theory that neither Freud nor his colleagues or students retained. It is argued that original sin is better understood as a manifestation of the preoedipal drive toward omnipotence arising from the infant state of primary narcissism."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Viti

I don't know that this belongs here, but don't know where it would be a better fit. Interesting discussion though so I'll let it stay.

My .02, like all anecdotal research, someone could do a study that indicates the exact opposite. When discussing psychology there is so little hard evidence to point to....its unforunate there is no blood test for "crazy"

Godless Dave

My father was not weak, absent, or abusive, but I turned out an atheist. But then, he's not religious either.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

AtlanticCitySlave

The point Vitz is obviously trying to make is not that atheism is unreasonable as a result of many coming to believe as the result of a bad (or absent) father figure, as he acknowledges in his book as not being his aim. Rather, the point is how one comes to get interested in, take a belief in, etc., becoming an atheist, and, even though I'm an atheist, I did find his book rather interesting and it raised some questions to ponder, but in the end I don't think he really made his case. I think, at the very least, he would need a study of a large sample of atheists, not just a few famous ones, and see the correlation between belief and the relationship with their fathers.
But, I wouldn't recommend buying the book. It has a neat cover, but it's sort of boring.