Most Helpful Customer Reviews
22 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
interesting book., March 7, 2000
Paul Vitz wrote a book in which he tries to explain why some people become atheist. He starts with psychoanalyses of Freud, and shows that the projection-theory which Freud uses against religion, was not a substantial element of psychoanalyses, but a personal idea of Freud who himself was an atheist. Then Vitz uses parts of psychoanalyses and combines it with the projectiontheory formulating the "defective/absent father hypotheses". He creates some sort of quasi-experiment (quasi means that not all variables have been controlled and absence of randomization which happens in a lot of research in psychology) on a descriptive case of a group of influential ahteist and as a control group, influential theist, and compares the biographical data of the two groups. Vitz argues that he found biographical evidence that supports his defective/absent father hypothesis and explains the atheism of a group of thinkers. At the same time he found biographical evidence in his control group which differs radical from the experimental group, which suggest that the biographical phenomena of atheism is explained by the hypotheses. Although the experiment is higly speculative and based on cases in which there is little biographical evidence, so the possibility of third variable phenomena, or alternative explanation is very likely, I found his case very challenging. As always with psychoanalytic thinking (and psychology in general) the human mind is a very complex thing and not easily explained with a single idea. Of course many questions remain, and methodologically it's not without critic, but I don't think (hope)Vitz wants to take the burden on his shoulder by stating the he found The psychological explanation of atheism. Still a thought-provoking book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
56 of 78 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fair and suggestive argument., March 18, 2000
I found Faith of the Fatherless readable, sympathetic, and suggestive if not absolutely persuasive. The book is admittedly anecdotal; it would be beyond the ability of one man to run his survey to "a group made up of millions," as the critic below suggests. But it seems to me Vitz gives a good sample of the most famous theists and anti-theists of the past two centuries, and I felt summarized their stories in an interesting and empathetic manner. I did not find his tone ad hominem, certainly not like Paul Johnson's Intellectuals. While I think a more whollistic undertanding of the development of spirituality would discuss moral and rational reasons for atheism or theism, as well as irrational causes such as the character of one's father, Vitz is a psychologist, after all, not primarily a philosopher. While the model he gives here may be a bit simplistic, he does not dismiss these other factors out-of-hand, as do determinists. Aside from other questionable statements, Eric Rogers' criticism below directly misrepresented Vitz on at least four points. Vitz did not make the remark imputed to him in the first paragraph; Roger has telescoped a long quotation to make him say what he did not say. Vitz did not "assume Voltaire hated his father simply because he changed his name;" he gave strong corroborative evidence for that hatred. Nor did he "assume" H.G.Wells rejected his father; he quoted him directly on the subject in an exceedingly persuasive passage. Nor, finally and most importantly, did Vitz claim that his theory determined a child's view of God. He stated directly and repeatedly that lack of a strong father figure is only a strong influencing factor. So the fact that siblings may choose different beliefs is no argument against Vitz' theory. I find it ironic that Rogers should accuse Vitz, and Christians in general by implication, of determinism, ad hominem, and illogic, when Vitz specifically rejects the shoddy deterministic logic that atheists (especially Marxists and Freudians) have used against Christianity for hundreds of years. The vehemence and inaccuracy of Roger's attack almost begs a psychological explanation itself. Faith of the Fathers should not be mistaken for an apologetic for the Christian faith, however. An atheist could even argue that the conclusion children come to who have lost their fathers is a valid inference from personal experience to the true nature of a cruel universe. The book adds to my sense of responsibility as I raise children of the same vulnerable age, and my concern as I see parents abandoning their responsibiities so easily in modern society. How might Vitz's argument apply to non-Western cultures? As I argue in Jesus and the Religions of Man (due June 2000), the concept of the Creator is both universal and surprisingly consistent around the world, even in "Hindu," "Buddhist" and tribal cultures. I find tentative corroboration of Vitz's argument in the ways Confucian thought has, for 3000 years, related duty to Heaven, as "Parent" of mankind, to duty to one's parents. The early life of Mao Zedong also strongly confirms the link in a negative way. I think many readers are likely to find possible confirmation of Vitz' theory among their own circle must not forget or oversimplify the pain and the complex causes that lie behind individual cases." Nor, of course, should we assume that the Fulfills the Chinese Culture (d.marshall@sun.ac.jp) END
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
38 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Turning Freud's Projection Theory of Religion on It's Head, January 20, 2000
Paul Vitz is a professor of psychology at New York University and was himself an atheist until his late 30's. The simple but compelling thesis of his new book is that "the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but can be called, in a general sense, psychological" (p. 5). Vitz turns Freud's projection theory of religion (belief in God is an illusion that derives from our childish need for protection and security) on its head, and argues that "the atheist's disappointment in and resentment of his own earthly father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God" (p. 16). Stated in concrete social terms, Vitz's thesis is that absent or deficient fathers predispose their children to practical, if not philosophical atheism. A good part of the book consists of 20 biographical sketches of prominent post-Enlightenment atheists, focusing on their relationships to their fathers or father figures. This group includes Friedrich Nietzche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, John-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and H.G. Wells. As a control group, the book provides biographical sketches of a similar number of prominent theists from the same period, including Blaise Pascal, Edmund Burke, Moses Mendelssohn, Soren Kierkegaard, G. K. Chesterton, and Dietrich Bonhoffer. Vitz finds that characteristically, the atheists had weak, bad or absent fathers, while the theists had good fathers or father substitutes. For the purposes of this brief review, Vitz' thesis has been greatly simplified. The book is a good deal more subtle and nuanced. The author concludes, "Since both believers and nonbelievers in God have psychological reasons for their positions, one important conclusion is that in any debate as to the truth of the existence of God, psychology should be irrelevant. A genuine search for evidence supporting, or opposing, the existence of God should be based on the evidence and arguments found in philosophy, theology, science, history, and other relevant disciplines" (p. 145).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
