Atheism as a psychological phenomenon.

by BurnTheShips 105 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

BurnTheShips

Reminds me of this scene from fight club for some reason...
That was awesome. I must see that movie now.
BTS
Narkissos

Re: Kant / Lacan
Of course there are similarities (also with Schopenhauer's theory of representation, or back in medieval nominalism) but the perspective, as I understand it, is completely different. Lacan is not interested in a theory of knowledge but in a sort of topography of thesubject of knowing. His question is not, "what do (or can) I know?" but "where am I?"
Also, Kant's God as a necessity of practical (= ethical) reason is still much more of a realistic (i.e., "imaginary" by Lacan's definitions) God than Lacan's "Father's name".
Anyway, you may understand better why the highjacking of psychoanalytical categories into a plain theistic agenda seems incredibly shallow to me (although Vitz seems to admit, in the conclusion of the second article, that he meant it that way, as a sort of reply in kind to an equally shallow argument, which may be considered fair if not bright).
Homerovah the Almighty

I still think its important to respect and acknowledge the intension of religion for what it was designed as a placement of order and control,
and I do think we have cultivated some of are moral ethics from them , perhaps where the problem arises is that they haven't evolved or changed over time with
any new secular modern social behavior or ideology and thats why they are perceived by many as dangerous and unjust toward humanity today..
BurnTheShips

Narkissos:
Maybe Vitz is merely playing with these lines of argumentation, but then of course, it seems that he did write a whole book about it. I guess he must be more than half serious.
From a review of his book on Amazon:
Vitz (psychology, New York U.), an atheist himself until his 30s, exposes atheism to the same psychological analysis atheistic apologists have used to debunk religious belief. Beginning with Freud's notion that belief in God is a product of humanity's desire for security, he argues that psychoanalysis is actually a better explanation for denial of God, concluding that the absence of a good father is at the core of militant atheism. Surveys of the leading intellectual defenders of atheism and Christianity, show that the atheists had "defective fathers" while the believers did not. Vitz does not intend to suggest that atheism is psychologically determined, but rather hopes to counteract the idea that irrational psychological factors lead one to believe in God. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com) -- Booknews
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.
Perhaps he is the one rebelling against the Father figures of his youth: the atheistic academic milieu, professors, and mentors, that he grew up in.
Cheers,
BTS
Narkissos

At the risk of being simplistic: it seems so very obvious that the road to any particular "stance" (any kind of atheism, theism, or other religious, political or philosophical opinion) is longer or shorter, easier or more difficult, depending on where you start from... (when and where you were born, grew up, and so on) so that it will take opposite psychological types to reach the same opinions (or, the same psychological types to reach opposite opinions) from opposite starting points.
Or, from a different pov, that the psychological type which is likely to join an opinion when it is new, minoritary and controversial is also likely to leave it in a later generation when it is established and respected (and the other way around)... I remember a hardcore Calvinist theologian who candidly admitted that he would never have become a Protestant in the 16th century because he was so viscerally conservative. How many "traditional Christians" would have chosen Christianity when it was all but traditional?
Psychology and ideology are certainly connected, but their connection can be rightly assessed only if all parameters (historical, sociological, economical, political) are taken into account...
beksbks

You guys are very interesting. I've not the brain power nor the desire to keep up with you. To me it's like I pass by an old house every day. I have passed by the same old house my whole life. When I was young, they told me there was a man that lived in that house. I believed them, even though I had never seen the man, and no one who told me he lived there had either. But they were my elders, and I believed them. As the years went by, I came to wonder if there really was a man that lived there. I still had never seen him. I even looked in the windows a few times. In 48 years, that man has never shown himself. What's more, there have never been any signs of life around the house at all. It's ramshackle and open now, and has been for years. I stopped even noticing it more than 20 years ago. Every once in a while, someone tries to tell me that a man lives there. I just smile and nod, I know there is no man there. I was never angry at the man for not living there, why would I be? It was those "elders" that told me he did. They were either mistaken, or lying. What has that to do with the man? And what does him living in the house or not have to do with me?
AllTimeJeff

I am going to start my response with the very end of the essay, which more or less somes up the writers views. (something I believe is important)
Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty, the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding and compassion. Certainly for a child to be forced to hate his own father-or even to despair because of his father's weaknesses is a great tragedy. After all, the child only wants to love his father. For any unbeliever whose atheism is grounded in such experience, the believer, blessed by God's love, should pray most especially that ultimately they will both meet in heaven. Meet and embrace and experience great joy. If so, perhaps the former atheist will experience even more joy than the believer. For, in addition to the happiness of the believer, the atheist will have that extra increment that comes from his surprise at finding himself surrounded by joy in, of all places, his Father's house.
As with any essay, the response elicited will in large measure be the result, not of the essay, but of our individual point of view. I offer mine in that spirit. I should note a couple of things to start: 1. He clearly paints the motives for being an athiest as "superficial". Thats quite a viewpoint to have in view of such things as science and factual discoveries concerning Christianity and world religions in general. 2. He does acknowledge (imo correctly) that each case is complex and individual. Good for him.
He also acknowledges the social pressure he felt to identify himself as an athiest, which I found intriguing, as that is usually one of the biggest reasons I can see for those who continue to believe or stay in a religious community. (i.e. "Yeah, I guess I am a Catholic. No I don't like what I see. I don't agree with their stand on abortion or homosexuality or birth control. But my family is Catholic, so I am not changing...")
I feel that one argument that he tries to make is that athiesm is in fact, a reflex of earlier childhood experiences. Using this as a barometer, anyone can say that nothing they believe is truly unbiased and thus "superficial", because they learned it at childhood. This is convenient for the sake of his arguement, but in defending thiesm, I feel he actually undermines faith and belief in general. (I realze that this is classic Freud, but bear with me.)
For example, with none of the traditional western religions around, who would believe in Jesus? Isn't it true that one must be taught that Jesus is in fact, alive, invisibly in the heavens before any semblance of faith and belief can occur? If you, the reader, were raised in Saudi Arabia for example and only been exposed to Islam, would you believe in Jesus? If we took a transplanted middle eastern baby, raised him with adoptive parents in Manhatten who took him to a synogouge, what would be believe? And yes, if you are raised by athiests, is it likely that you are going to be pre-disposed to not believe in god. There are some, such as the author, who "switched teams" from athiesm to thiesm. There reasons are there own, and do not prove anything on their own. They don't answer the evidentiary questions that have long plagued thiests in the thiest/athiest arguements that continue to spatter about.
Lastly, it might have been a more accurate article to say that he had a problem with Freudian athiests. No athiest I know is one because of Freud. If one wishes to explain thiesm or athiesm through Freudian terms, that is one thing. But Freud represents only one avenue of psychology. (why didn't he discuss Jung? Jung didn't have the open hostility to religion, in fact, some think he sounds a bit "new agey" based on who is reading it) I think many who have any sort of passing knowledge of psychology would acknowledge that Freud plowed the first road in modern psychology, but he certainly didn't pave it. His basic contribution to psychology is the concept that psychological issues can be treated by trained talk therapists. I would largely discredit most of what Freud had to say in general, outside of a few guiding concepts in psychology. It should also be noted that modern therapists actually include one's religious faith as a way to help those who are troubled mentally in their therapy. This is far from what Freud would have endorsed.
In short, to try to marginilize athiests (or anything) using Freudian based psychotherapy is a waste of time. (just one mans opinion)
Since this article seems a bit wordy and overly academic for the average JW or ex JW (and I include myself in that group), I would suggest a more pragmatic playing field. Here is how I see it.
Athiests and agnostics I know, esp ex JW's, are so because they often had little opportunity to critically examine their beliefs, why they believe, who they obey and follow. When actually allowed to do so, (something that JW's for example are forbidden to do) what do they find? God? Jesus? No, these agnostic/athiests find history books with facts and data, and when they decide to become athiests, they do so not because they have had daddy issues, but because of the evidence that they have assimilated. Even if they choose to do so for highly emotional reasons, the fact is, god could sort of show up for all our benefits. (It would really stop these discussions wouldn't it?) Are athiests and agnostics free to come up with their own evidentiary tests for god's existence? It seems to me that all types of thiests are free to do so, why not athiests? If their tests are more stringent, they certainly can't be called unreasonable.
When researching the bible, here is what I found: The bible is a collection of old scrolls. The bible canon that is the foundation of modern western Christianity was the subject of much debate. There is no evidence that it is anything but the writings of man, a collection of wisdom and ancient (though sometimes dubious) history of a small group of people. Whether one chooses to attach faith and mystical significance to this book is a personal decision. But one who chooses to view these books theistically does so "as a matter of faith", as their is no evidence or compelling reason to do so, as evidenced by the survival rate of agnostic and athiests that we observe today.
Athiests cannot prove that god doesn't exist. They also cannot prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. I don't see a difference. Believing that Santa exists sometimes makes people feel better, and as long as their aren't any constitutional ammendments demanding that we pray for our X-mas presents in school, then I am totally cool with those who think that Santa is real. Can we talk about the psychology behind that? Or isn't it more accurate to say that the reasons people (mostly children) believe because they have been taught, not because they have daddy issues.
Athiests have got a bad rap from thiests, essentially because they disagree with thiests and thiests cannot answer their questions scientifically. (lets face it: to say I see "god" in a sunset might be deep for you, but it doesn't help prove the existence of god at all. To say there is an ancient prophecy yet to be fulfilled in the bible might do something for you, but you can't prove it) There isn't anything that can be proven thiestically, only persuasion exists. To say that athiests believe the way they do because of psychological issues is a weak attempt to change the real issues involved, in my opinion.
There is a limit, a void that science doesn't fill. Faith and spirituality (defined by me as the quest for meaning and purpose in each individuals life) is important. If one chooses to fill that through organized religion, thats fine with me. However, I think the main problem most athiests and agnostics have isn't religion or god per se, but instead, the enforced group think mentallity we saw in JW's and see at times with the Dobson crowd and the fundamentalists of the GOP. Please, feel free to believe what you want, but don't enforce it through Government. And don't pretend that you are right, that your god exists as certainly as the chair I am sitting on now. Show some humility to what you don't know, and what you can do.... please?
If I ever do chosse to believe in god again, it will likely be because I feel a need to, and it will be quite personal, and I still won't vote Republican, nor will I try to argue for my belief. I doubt I would ever let most people know about it. It would be for me, me alone.
This premise is a fight on an inaccurate playing field. The fight over athiesm/thiesm is on evidence, not psychology.
That article was so long, and I wanted to watch football today and then I have to work Monday. But those are my basic thoughts on it. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on it.
beksbks

Yer pretty cool AllTime
BurnTheShips

AllTimeJeff:
He clearly paints the motives for being an athiest as "superficial".
I think you misread his use of the word. This does not mean that there are not compelling motives from a rational point of view, but that they are "not psychologically deep rooted". In other words, "psychologically superficial".
This premise is a fight on an inaccurate playing field. The fight over athiesm/thiesm is on evidence, not psychology.
As the author himself notes:
The point of the profiling of atheists is to remove psychological motives from explaining religious belief. The ad hominem attack on theism posits an immature need for support, but there are psychological causes for atheism as well as theism. So when the atheist attacks a theists beliefs for being childish, the theist can counter, ``and so's your old man!" So, this argument more or less levels the playing field as far as psychological explanations of belief/disbelief are concerned.
In the documentary "Has Science Discovered God?" Dr. Paul Vitz concludes that psychological reasons for believing or not believing in God have nothing to do with the facts and that the actual evidence should be examined instead.
Thanks,
BTS
AllTimeJeff

BTS
I think you misread his use of the word. This does not mean that there are not compelling motives from a rational point of view, but that they are "not psychologically deep rooted". In other words, "psychologically superficial".
I see your point. Even in that context though, I would point out that "psychologically superficial" is still quite a judgement to make. If one does have a strong emotional reaction to learning that their former thiestic point of view was wrong or unsupportable, it still minimizes the decision a person may make to keep an athiestic point of view. Which leads to the next highlight.

The point of the profiling of atheists is to remove psychological motives from explaining religious belief. The ad hominem attack on theism posits an immature need for support, but there are psychological causes for atheism as well as theism. So when the atheist attacks a theists beliefs for being childish, the theist can counter, ``and so's your old man!" So, this argument more or less levels the playing field as far as psychological explanations of belief/disbelief are concerned.
In the documentary "Has Science Discovered God?" Dr. Paul Vitz concludes that psychological reasons for believing or not believing in God have nothing to do with the facts and that the actual evidence should be examined instead.
I agree that psychological causes exist for both athiesm and thiesm. That is common sense. However, since as brought out, the goal was to level the playing field for psychological explanations, I think there is something all of us who are reading this should consider:
Ad hominem attacks are wrong. However, are thiests always attacked ad hominem? That is what is implied and I can't agree with that. Thiests often respond to athiests who question their premise by saying they are attacked, when in fact, it is their facts that they use and their logic that is attacked. Any by attacked, I mean questioned and exposed.
I don't like it when a thiest is called "childish", but I cannot see in academia where this is the case. For example, in Sam Harris book "The End of Faith", his entire premise is to expose why in his view, thiesm and faith are dangerous. He made many powerful arguements, none of which can be called ad hominem.
However, on a much more personal level, such as an internet forum like this, you will see name calling and highly emotional arguements made. BTS, you have made them yourself, at least with name calling. Whatever your reasons were for doing this, the fact is that you did this. And some athiests responded in kind, or started it. That is everyone's perrogative. I don't think it benefits either sides arguement.
It is my view that if any group has been attacked ad hominem, it has been the agnostic/athiest crowd by thiests in public life. When we are told that we are going to be judged and destroyed by god, that god hates certain sin, certain people, and that we should repent or else, I cannot help but think that this qualifies as ad hominem. Thiests will in turn run for cover by saying "But its in the bible!" Which was the point of Sam Harris book. There is no logic or sensability to hate any group and judge them. But somehow, thiests get a free pass in the name of free religious expression. While they are welcome to hold their view in private or within their religious community, to promote such in a public forum or in public life opens thiests up to charecterizations as "childish" and "foolish". Context matters. No one likes being called "childish". On the other hand, if the shoe fits.......
Athiests do not want religious people to have their beliefs or services taken away. They just want religious ideas and postulations kept out of public and governmental life. If there are athiests who want religion to go away and be "jailed", I would not go along with that.
My point isn't to call thiests childish. I think to reduce athiesm to a psychological "neener neener" session reduces both sides. However, I sense greater sensitivity and pressure on thiests, who continue to fail in adequetly explaining why their thiestic views should hold a place in the public life of a westernized democracy. Believe it if you want, but don't legislate it, and don't enforce it on those who disagree. If you do choose to bring thiesm to the forefront (in a Mike Huckabee way for example) then be prepared to be called on it and explain the logic for it. And don't be surprised if it gets raw.
Just my two cents. :)

Atheism as a psychological phenomenon.

Share this