 |
| I bought these for Linda yesterday. |
(Most philosophers today do not even consider Sigmund Freud's Feuerbach-indebted reasoning in support of atheism. In spite of this the psychologizing of religious people continues, thanks in large part to Freud and his influence.)
Paul Vitz, in "The Psychology of Atheism," by Paul Vitz, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at
New York University (Also in Dallas Willard, ed., A Place for Truth). Vitz looks at psychological reasons for unbelief. "Most psychologists view
with some alarm an attempt to propose a psychology of atheism. At the very
least, such a project puts many psychologists on the defensive and gives them
at least a small taste of their own medicine. Psychologists are always
observing and interpreting others, and it is time that some of them learn from
their own experience what it is like to be put under the microscope of
psychology theory and evidence." (136) So, why not apply psychological analysis to atheism?
Vitz begins by giving two points that bear on his basic assumptions. First, Vitz assumes "that the major barriers to God are not rational but in a general sense can be called psychological... I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument, there are countless others more affected by nonrational, psychological factors. The human heart: no one can truly fathom it or know all of its deceits, but at least it is the proper task of the psychologist to try." (Ib.) Psychological barriers to belief in God are both many and "of great importance." (Ib.) Further, "people vary greatly in the extent to which these factors have been present in their lives." (137) In other words, most of the atheists I meet come to their new faith via some experience, and then they google later.
Secondly, "in spite of serious psychological barriers to belief, all of us have a free choice to accept or reject God." (Ib.)
Vitz believes there is "a widespread assumption throughout much of the intellectual community that belief in God is based on all kids of irrational, immature needs and wishes, but that somehow or other skepticism or atheism is derived from a rational, non-nonsense appraisal of the way things really are." (137-138) This is false. In regard to this Vitz gives his own story of how he became an atheist as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan in the 1950s. One of the major factors for this was "general socialization," though Vitz was unaware of it at the time. He was embarrassed about his religious and cultural upbringing in Cincinnati and "wanted to take part and be comfortable in the new, exciting, glamorous, secular world into which I was moving at that time at the University of Michgian as an undergraduate." (139) "Socialization pressure" has pushed many people away from God-belief "and all that this belief is associated with for them." (Ib.)
Socialization pressure fueled Vitz's atheistic turn resulting in the desire "be accepted by powerful and influential psychologists in my field. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by the powerful and influential psychologists in my field." (139)
A final, superficial-but-very-strong-irrational-pressure to become an atheist, was "personal convenience." (139) Simply put, it was inconvenient "to be a serious believer in today's powerful neo-pagan world." Which meant, for Vitz, the world of academia. "It's not hard to imagine the pleasures that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer." (140) And the time it would require.
For Vitz, his "decision" to become an atheist was more a matter of his will than his intellect. Because of his "personal needs for a convenient lifestyle," and his "professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology," "atheism was simply the best policy." (141) But there are deeper psychological reasons for atheism, to which Vitz turns.
Vitz has sympathy with atheists who have deeper psychological reasons for being an atheist. They are often the most passionate of atheists, and not just casual, internet atheists. Vitz looks at Sigmund Freud's psychology of religious belief, because Vitz is going to use Freud in forming a psychology of atheism.
Vitz begins by giving two points that bear on his basic assumptions. First, Vitz assumes "that the major barriers to God are not rational but in a general sense can be called psychological... I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument, there are countless others more affected by nonrational, psychological factors. The human heart: no one can truly fathom it or know all of its deceits, but at least it is the proper task of the psychologist to try." (Ib.) Psychological barriers to belief in God are both many and "of great importance." (Ib.) Further, "people vary greatly in the extent to which these factors have been present in their lives." (137) In other words, most of the atheists I meet come to their new faith via some experience, and then they google later.
Secondly, "in spite of serious psychological barriers to belief, all of us have a free choice to accept or reject God." (Ib.)
Vitz believes there is "a widespread assumption throughout much of the intellectual community that belief in God is based on all kids of irrational, immature needs and wishes, but that somehow or other skepticism or atheism is derived from a rational, non-nonsense appraisal of the way things really are." (137-138) This is false. In regard to this Vitz gives his own story of how he became an atheist as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan in the 1950s. One of the major factors for this was "general socialization," though Vitz was unaware of it at the time. He was embarrassed about his religious and cultural upbringing in Cincinnati and "wanted to take part and be comfortable in the new, exciting, glamorous, secular world into which I was moving at that time at the University of Michgian as an undergraduate." (139) "Socialization pressure" has pushed many people away from God-belief "and all that this belief is associated with for them." (Ib.)
Socialization pressure fueled Vitz's atheistic turn resulting in the desire "be accepted by powerful and influential psychologists in my field. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by the powerful and influential psychologists in my field." (139)
A final, superficial-but-very-strong-irrational-pressure to become an atheist, was "personal convenience." (139) Simply put, it was inconvenient "to be a serious believer in today's powerful neo-pagan world." Which meant, for Vitz, the world of academia. "It's not hard to imagine the pleasures that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer." (140) And the time it would require.
For Vitz, his "decision" to become an atheist was more a matter of his will than his intellect. Because of his "personal needs for a convenient lifestyle," and his "professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology," "atheism was simply the best policy." (141) But there are deeper psychological reasons for atheism, to which Vitz turns.
Vitz has sympathy with atheists who have deeper psychological reasons for being an atheist. They are often the most passionate of atheists, and not just casual, internet atheists. Vitz looks at Sigmund Freud's psychology of religious belief, because Vitz is going to use Freud in forming a psychology of atheism.
And why not? Lots of psychological work has
been done on religious belief and behavior, and lots of internet ad hominem
"analysis" goes on by the village atheists among us. Why not a
psychology of atheism, subjecting it to analysis? Atheists are no more immune
or psychological "neutral" than are theists. Indeed, for most of the
confessing atheists I have met I have concluded that their nonbelief is far
more related to, e.g., emotional and psychological issues than being a
result of "objective, rational thought." This is not a criticism of atheism as such.
Theists suffer this, too. It is, however, a criticism of the myth of epistemic
neutrality and objectivity. It cuts ways, also affecting theists who
claim a neutral, fully objective and "rational" view of things.
Perhaps the most famous, and infamous, psychology of religion is Freud's The Future of an Illusion. "Freud was the first prominent psychologist to propose that people's belief in God could not be trusted because of its origins. In other words, what Freud did was take the ad hominem argument and make it a very popular and influential one." (141) Uh-oh. Ad hominem arguments, in logic, are a no-no; they are epistemic non-events.
Freud argued that we can't trust the source of religious beliefs. Religion is neither true nor false, but "is a psychological illusion that arose from our primitive needs for protection. Our basic, infantile, unconscious needs for a father who would look after us, and therefore an illusion." (142) Because of this we cannot accept the truth value of theism.
But this is not convincing. Freud thought that all the contributions of civilization, including science and literature and even psychoanalysis, could be understood as due to infantile, unconscious needs. "So," Vitz says, "if the origins of a belief make us no longer accept its truth value, then according to Fried, we shouldn't accept the truth value of all the other accomplishments of civilization that he said arose from the same kind of motivation." (142) Obviously, this would refer to Freud's analysis of theism as well.
Freud claimed that among the oldest psychological needs of the human race is the need for a loving, all-powerful father. But that is unconvincing, because if it were true than most or all religions would project the idea of "God" as a loving, protecting, all-powerful "father." But this is not the case. "Many religions don't have that understanding of God at all, particularly many of the pre-Christian or pre-Jewish religions in the Mediterranean area. Some major religions either have no God or their understanding of God is quite different."
So Vitz thinks Freud's assumption of a universal, human need of this type is unconvincing. Because were it true, then we'd find "the same kind of religion everywhere we looked." (142)
Where did Freud borrow his atheism from (because it's not original)? Freud's atheism comes from what
has been called the "projection theory" of German
philosopher-theologian Ludwig Feuerbach. Vitz writes: "When Freud was
writing his Future of an
Illusion in
the 1920s, he was updating Feuerbach." (142)
Freud's atheism is not itself part of his psychoanalysis. Vitz writes: "The thing to keep in mind is this: Freud had very little experience, maybe none at all, with the psychological study of people who believed in God. (143) Freud published no case histories of people who believed in God at the time of their psychoanalysis. "So Freud was really not an expert on the unconscious psychology of people who believed in God." (Ib.) Freud, therefore, did not give us a good theory of religious belief since his ideas are not psychoanalytically rooted and are not at all based on much personal experience with God-believers. Freud merely warmed up Feuerbach's projection theory. This is not good scholarship.
Feuerbach's theory is found in his The Essence of Christianity. Feuerbach wrote:
Freud's atheism is not itself part of his psychoanalysis. Vitz writes: "The thing to keep in mind is this: Freud had very little experience, maybe none at all, with the psychological study of people who believed in God. (143) Freud published no case histories of people who believed in God at the time of their psychoanalysis. "So Freud was really not an expert on the unconscious psychology of people who believed in God." (Ib.) Freud, therefore, did not give us a good theory of religious belief since his ideas are not psychoanalytically rooted and are not at all based on much personal experience with God-believers. Freud merely warmed up Feuerbach's projection theory. This is not good scholarship.
Feuerbach's theory is found in his The Essence of Christianity. Feuerbach wrote:
·
What man misses -
whether this be an articulate and therefore conscious, or an unconscious, need
- that is his God.
·
Man projects his
nature into the world outside himself before he finds it in himself.
·
To live in projected
dream-images is the essence of religion. Religion sacrifices reality to the
projected dream. . .
Elsewhere Vitz
explains: "What Freud did with this argument was to revive it in a more
eloquent form, and publish it at a later time when the audience desiring to
hear such a theory was much larger. And, of course, somehow the findings and
theory of psychoanalysis were implied as giving the theory strong
support."
"Strangely enough, however, Freud has inadvertently given us a basic theory for understanding why people would not believe in God, why people would be atheists!" (In Willard, op. cit., 143) The projection theory cuts both ways. To understand this Vitz looks at the one idea Freud is famous for, and which is central to his theory: the "Oedipus Complex."
"Strangely enough, however, Freud has inadvertently given us a basic theory for understanding why people would not believe in God, why people would be atheists!" (In Willard, op. cit., 143) The projection theory cuts both ways. To understand this Vitz looks at the one idea Freud is famous for, and which is central to his theory: the "Oedipus Complex."
Vitz
writes: "The interesting thing about the Oedipus complx is that Freud said
it's universal. There's no reason to believe this, but Freud argued that it is
universal, that it is unconscious, and in the case of the male child, the
unconscious desire is to reject or remove and kill his father and to have some
kind of erotic possession of the mother." (143) Say "whew"... and thank God that this is
not common (says Vitz, who doesn't find this kind of thing in his own
counseling work)!
What does this have to do with God? Freud took his Oedipus theory and said people link their own fathers with God. God, said Freud, is a "father figure and our attitude toward God and our father are very similar." (144)
Freud thought this explained God-belief. But Vitz shows that the OE is not universal, as Freud thought. Ironically, if Freud's eccentric Oedipus theory explains anything, it explains atheism. Vitz says:
"Since Freud proposed that God is a father figure, this suggests that we should all have an unconscious desire to kill God, to be independent of God, to have the world the way we want it. In a sense, what he's saying is that an atheist has an unresolved Oedipus complex because normally the father is too big to kill and the child can't get away with it. And so, instead of killing his father, the child identifies with the aggressor, his father, and represses these aggressive and sexual desires, which then remain unconscious." (144)
Freud thinks all of us have a desire to kill God. Vitz thinks Freud is on to something here. He writes: "I would propose that atheism is an example of Oedipal wish fulfillment. That is, it's an unresolved Oedipus complex in the person." OK. But Vitz does not think "Oedipal wish fulfillment" is anywhere near "universal." So Vitz thinks we need to go deeper. This brings us to the "theory of the defective father." I cannot begin to tell you how many atheists I have met who seem to me to especially be reacting to their fathers.
What does this have to do with God? Freud took his Oedipus theory and said people link their own fathers with God. God, said Freud, is a "father figure and our attitude toward God and our father are very similar." (144)
Freud thought this explained God-belief. But Vitz shows that the OE is not universal, as Freud thought. Ironically, if Freud's eccentric Oedipus theory explains anything, it explains atheism. Vitz says:
"Since Freud proposed that God is a father figure, this suggests that we should all have an unconscious desire to kill God, to be independent of God, to have the world the way we want it. In a sense, what he's saying is that an atheist has an unresolved Oedipus complex because normally the father is too big to kill and the child can't get away with it. And so, instead of killing his father, the child identifies with the aggressor, his father, and represses these aggressive and sexual desires, which then remain unconscious." (144)
Freud thinks all of us have a desire to kill God. Vitz thinks Freud is on to something here. He writes: "I would propose that atheism is an example of Oedipal wish fulfillment. That is, it's an unresolved Oedipus complex in the person." OK. But Vitz does not think "Oedipal wish fulfillment" is anywhere near "universal." So Vitz thinks we need to go deeper. This brings us to the "theory of the defective father." I cannot begin to tell you how many atheists I have met who seem to me to especially be reacting to their fathers.
Freud said: "Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the
intimate connection between the father complex and belief in God, has shown us
that the personal God is logically nothing but an exalted father and daily
demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as
the authority of their father has broken down." (144)
Vitz calls this "the theory of the defective father." The claim here is that "once a child is disappointed in
and loses his or her respect for the earthly father, then belief in a heavenly father becomes impossible." Fathers can and do lose their authority and disappoint their children. This is what happened to Freud himself.
Freud's father, Jacob, was a great disappointment, His father was weak, unable to support his own family, and a coward in his non-response to anti-Semitism. One time an anti-Semite called Jacob a "dirty Jew" and knocked his hat off. Jacob refused to respond, and young Sigmund was disgusted when he heard about this. Vitz catalogues other reasons for Freud's antipathy towards his father.
Vitz cites other famous atheists who had "defective fathers, to include Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and Madeleine Murray O'Hare. O'Hare's own son has written, e.g., about the hatred her mother had for his grandmother. Once she tried to kill her dad with a ten-inch butcher knife!
Vitz writes quite a bit about the atheist psychologist Albert Ellis, who may have been in denial of his hatred towards his father. And then there's orphaned child Baron d'Holbach, Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche (whose "life fits the theory about as well as any"), Jean Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus. And Gene Roddenberry ("Star Trek") and Russell Baker and... on and on...
Vitz adds, "for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, denied, hated, manipulated or physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding." (151)
One more personal point. Whenever I see a father who is a religious "Christian fundamentalist" I am concerned for their children. I met, in my 11 years at Michigan State University, many kids of fundamentalist dads who had rejected "Christianity." They did not know that the so-called "Christianity" of their fathers was not the actual thing, and that the meaning of "fundamentalism" is: 1) no "fun," 2) too much "damn," and 3) not enough "mental." No wonder they rejected this!
(For Vitz's full work on the psychology of atheism see his book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.)
