Customer Reviews

Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

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.

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

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).

Nietzche asked what psychological motivations lead people to accept religious views. Vitz returns the favor by exploring the relationship of atheists and their fathers. He floats the thesis that a defective or absent father can be a major factor to predispose an especially bright person to atheism, the ultimate rejection of a father figure. This book ranks with "Curing Atheism" by Cardinal Gibbons as one of the must-reads on the subject of atheism.

Paul Vitz writes a short analysis on a very specific narrow focus. He has a "defective father theory" to explain the start of atheism among intellectuals.

Clarification: Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen has said there are three types of atheists. 1. Those who are governed by their instincts and live according to their instincts and do not really give it much thought. 2. Those who have read a smattering of philosophy and see suffering and evil in the world and conclude there is no God. 3. The third type is that which is described as militant atheism (like the communists), they really do not in essence deny God, rather than directly challenge it.

Paul Vitz's treatment of atheism and his theory applies best to that third group of atheists that can be described as militant. Those people who specifically write against God. He also sought to find the origins of modern atheism by looking to those who in history can be said to be "fathers" of the atheistic movement.

His book does not address the argument of God's existence or not. If you want that, I recommend reading Aristotle's arguments of the First Cause or St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments in the first book of the Summa Contra Gentiles. In that he gives 5 metaphysical logical proofs that logically demonstrates that God must exist. That is not the scope of this short book.

Framework:
First Vitz looks at the psychological projection theory and notes that Freud had no psychoanalytic evidence for it. He questions and then explores through biographical data to see if it better applies to explain psychologically the basis for early atheistic militant writers and philosophers.

The first category he treats is the "dead fathers." Here he does short analysis of atheists whose fathers died while at a young age (most before age 7). The atheists reaction to this was that of abandonment. A pattern in their lives was that they did not have a good father figure. The lack of a father led them to reject God the Father.

Next he explores atheists who had weak or abusive fathers and how hatred of their fathers seems to be a reoccurring pattern in these atheistic writers.

Next, he contrasts them with theists of the same time periods who specifically wrote against the writings of atheists.

He does note exceptions. He does not mean for this to be the only cause, but a significant influence that has affected most of the most famous atheist writers. One interesting note that he does note of an atheist with a strong relationship to his father was that of John Stewart Mill whose father was James Mill. Here John was an atheist writer with a strong father who was an atheist.

His notes on differences between men and women beliefs are interesting.

Does his book prove that atheism is caused by bad fathers? NO. That is not his point or his scope. Rather, it shows that the lack of a good father in the lives of famous atheists was a strong psychological factor for those atheists in their rejection of God.

One interesting outside research that somewhat validates Vitz's hypothesis is from Pew. Their research shows that the single most determining factor if a child will retain their religious faith in adulthood is the faith and practice of the faith of the father in the home while the child grew up. If the father was a believer, attended church regularly, was happy in his faith, and not a hypocrite in actions, then the child had a much higher probability of retaining their childhood faith into adulthood.

Again, his theory is best applies to atheists who can be described as militant in their views. It also is best applied to those who enter the intellectual area and write about atheism.

Very good short read book for understanding the pyschology behind those writers who led the charge to bring atheism into mainstream of society.

This is a brief but very interesting book. Professor Vitz demonstrates that Freud's famous dismissal of theistic religious belief as merely the projection of a father figure can easily be turned against atheism, as well. He could have argued, and does indeed hint, that his theory of the origins of atheism has more evidence to back it and more explanatory power than does Freudianism's dogmatic dismissal -- but, in the end, he is content with the lesser but still very important point that discussions of the truth-claims of theism will have to proceed on the basis of evidence and analysis. Smug dismissal of religious belief on the basis merely of a crude and ungrounded psychological reductionism cannot be justified. A very provocative work, and highly recommended.

Over a decade ago Paul Johnson wrote an interesting book entitled Intellectuals. In it he looked at the personal lives of some famous Western thinkers, such as Rosseau and Marx. He noted that many of these great intellectuals had private lives that left a lot to be desired. He noted, in other words, a connection between belief and behavior.

In this book Paul Vitz provides a similar kind of study. He examines the lives of a number of well known atheists, and discovers that most of them had an absent or abusive father. He argues that those who have had poor relations with their earthly father also tend to have had a poor image of their heavenly father.

Vitz first examines those atheists whose fathers died when they were relatively young - atheists such as Nietzsche, Sartre and Bertrand Russell. Then he assesses atheists who had weak or abusive fathers, eg., Voltaire, Feuerbach and Freud. Finally, as a control group, he studies some notable theists and their fathers - men such as Edmund Burke, Pascal, Chesterton and John Henry Newman.

These psychological profiles make a strong case for his main thesis - fathers matter, and the worldview we carry with us into adulthood is largely determined in childhood. With the resurgence of the fatherhood movement, especially in America, this is all the more timely. Ideas do have consequences, and our ideas are heavily influenced by our upbringing. Thus the importance of a good upbringing - one that includes a mother and a father.

Vitz warns about over-simplification, and recognises that there are a multitude of factors that explain or determine how we develop. However, the fact that so many atheists have similar background does make for an intriguing hypothesis. And the details Vitz provides are quite revealing. Consider but a few examples.

Jean-Paul Sartre's father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. His philosophy promotes the idea that man can become God, that we are self-made men. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father.

According to her son (who later became a Christian), Madalyn Murray O'Hair intensely hated her father. In his memoirs, he records an ugly fight in which she tried to kill her father with a ten-inch butcher knife. She failed but screamed, "I'll see you dead. I'll get you yet. I'll walk on your grave!" Her son says he does not understand why she so hated her father.

While Vitz does note some exceptions to the pattern, he emphasises the fact that this missing ingredient of fatherhood does have a profound impact on the way a person develops and what they believe in. Vitz concludes: "Since both believers and nonbelievers in God have psychological reasons for their position ... in any debate as to the truth of the existence of God, psychology should be irrelevant". Truth, facts, and the evidence should decide that question, not personality.

As this book makes clear, there is a real correlation between personal psycho-history and belief systems. Of course such childhood backgrounds are not fully determinative - people can and do change, rising above their circumstances and backgrounds. However, this book helps us to understand the passion and vehemence of some atheists, and shows us that philosophies can be as much a product of our social background as of hard reasoning.

Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
by Paul C. Vitz
Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999 (hardback); 2000 (paperback)
Pp. 174 including notes and index
ISBN 1-890626-25-2 (pbk.)

Review-essay by Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J.
Alma, Michigan
Published in The St. Louis Review, 21 December 2007, p. 18
Posted on Ignatius Insight, 25 January 2008

This precious book has been out for just a few years, and it deserves to be recalled frequently with renewed attention.

The crisis of fatherlessness is partly cultural. We experience it acutely in the United States. Teachers and pastors witness its devastating effects every day. An abnormal ideological feminism at times enters the vacuum created by fatherlessness. Fatherlessness can also generate homoeroticism or a frantic search for some "spirituality of masculinity".

Indeed, both boys and girls need a wise father who encourages them and strengthens them, and who provides what a mother cannot. In our society today, the need for true fathers has become desperate, though by the grace of God generous grandfathers have stepped forward to care for the young. Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote movingly about this in My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir (HarperCollins Publishers, 2007).

Dr. Paul Vitz takes a broad historical sweep of atheists from the Enlightenment to our own day. In most cases alienation from God was a reaction to an absent or defective father. Similarly, a survey of staunch believers of the last two centuries shows that most of them had a close relationship with their father or instead enjoyed an effective father substitute.

An example is the life of Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) whose father died when he was two. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning of Westminster was a real father figure to the young Hilaire, and Hilaire matured in the way men do whose biological fathers helped them along the way. (p. 98-100) As an Anglican clergyman, Manning lost his wife. He knew the sorrow of widowhood personally. Later as a Catholic, when he became cardinal-archbishop, he maintained his role as father and found time to spend with the teenage Hilaire despite the many pressing duties of office.

Vitz gives us an autobiographical section in which he explains his own "superficial" atheism as a young American academic. His atheism was more a social conformity and a career need than the result of a damaged relationship with his father. A positive father relationship probably helped him overcome temporary atheism and made possible his serious adult conversion to the Catholic faith. (p. 130-137)

Faith of the Fatherless does not mention the strong rumors that the dying Jean-Paul Sartre converted to theism, and it was written before the aging Antony Flew converted from philosophical atheism to philosophical theism. And of course he wrote well before atheist Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass became so well known. We eagerly await information on Pullman's relationship with his father.

But Vitz's selection of authors to analyze is interesting and adequate. On the atheist side we study twenty-nine intellectuals or world leaders from the eighteenth century to the present. (p. 20-57; 104-129). These include those who suffered from deaceased fathers, weak fathers, absent fathers or abusive fathers. On the theist side we get thumbnail sketches of twenty-four historical examples of believing Christians and Jews. (p. 58-93) Some of them, such as Don Bosco, who himself became an effective substitute father to hundreds of industrial-age orphans, found effective substitute fathers. (p. 95-98) There are exceptional cases as well as cases with qualifications, but these tend to support the hypothesis. (p. 122-125)

This book is short and readable. High school teachers could use it for class. The book would actually introduce students to Western Civilization by way of the "glue" that has traditionally held it together¯religion. Students could draw their own conclusions as to what happens when a failed father fuels atheism, especially the atheism of great thinkers, artists and leaders. And the "decline of the West" makes more sense when we consider the consequence if the role of the father decays.

The psychology of unbelief is a fascinating field, and according to Vitz it is mostly about fatherlessness. This field is a corollary to the traditional Christian teaching on marriage and family.

First off, to attack this book as "unscientific" is just disingenous. Vitz does admit, in his book, that there are exceptions to every rule. This is not a book to prove or disprove the existance of God, and the author says as much. What Paul C. Vitz sets out to do, he does accomplish. He does show there is a pattern to how the most famous and well known atheists related, as children, to their fathers or the father figures in their lives. He also looks at famous theists and does show that, for the most part, they had positive relationships with their fathers or other adult males in their lives. One of the more interesting points Vitz makes is that atheist philosophy, which says it so admires science, is in many respects in complete contradiction with what scientists believe about how religious thought develops. The author is fair in encouraging the reader to make up their own minds based on arguments found in philosophy, theology, science and history, about the existance or non-existance of God. There is refreshingly, no bold pronouncement here. Vitz makes a good argument that there is a psychology to atheism. Finally, unlike the pronouncements and writings of many atheists, there is no arrogance here, just good scholarship. This is a good, quick, and interesting read.

The FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS (Spence Publishing, 1999, and 176 pages) by Paul C. Vitz is an informative and popular read. The only reason I bothered to review this specific title is due to what I felt was erroneous and substantive errors on behalf of some of the people who gave the book a negative review.

The "a reader from London, England" comments that "Second of all, of course there is no actual evidence to suggest that every atheist had a bad father, or lacked a father." Similar comments concerning the book come from such people as: "Ed." The problem with this argument contra Vitz is that Vitz does not assume that "every atheist had a bad father, or lacked a father." Vitz argues that (contra to the Oedipus/Freudian theory) that people with a happy childhood with two both parental figures will have the choice to determine a theistic or an atheistic worldview, but that (especially) males who had either no father, an abusive father, or a weak father will have a psychological tendency to become atheists. The Vitz thesis is not "all atheists" had a father with any of the above descriptions, only the fatherless--Vitz's arguments are specified to only fatherless atheists.

A man named Mr. Rogers comments that "Paul C. Vitz joins the ranks of Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) and Michael Drosnin (The Bible Code) in his attempt to use science and reason to support his religious beliefs." This comment leaves me the inference that he (Rogers) is amazingly un-well-read. THere are literally thousand upon thousand of Christian apologetic texts, ranging in fields from history to philosophy to science to (yes) psychology. Rogers continues, "The premise behind the book is that adults reject atheism as the result of being disgruntled children, but instead of offering solid evidence Vitz results instead to misrepresentations, poor logic, and ad hominem attacks in which he characterizes atheists as being arrogant and immoral. " That is NOT the premise of the book. The premise is that people reject the Christian diety due to bad or absent fathers. Concerning Vitz's use of ad hominem arguments, Vitz himself recognizes this, as he writes, "...psychological arguments are all ad hominem; that is, they address the person presenting the evidence and not the evidence himself." (pg. 145)

Continuing in Rogers's erroneous review, he comments: "He then makes the enormous leap in logic that a child views his father as a god figure, therefore disliking an abusive or absent father will cause the child to become an atheist." Yet Rogers has yet to demonstrate that this is an "enormous leap in logic."

Rogers: "what we find is that only a few of Vitz's atheists share any one aspect of childhood." Uh, how about that all of them had an abusive, absent, or weak father, JUST AS VITZ CONTINUALLY ENFORCED AND FOCUSED UPON?

Rogers: "Does this NYU psychologist really believe that these are equal offenses to a child?" Where does Vitz state this? From my reading, it appears that Vitz is trying to demonstrate that the child's reaction to the offenses are similar, not that the offenses must be congruent in every-which-mannor.

Rogers: "What's interesting is what he considers abusive. In the case of Jean Meslier, Vitz claims that his father was abusive because he encouraged him to become a priest." Vitz himself almost directly commented on this that "There is not enough information to make an obvious case for Meslier's having had an absuive father--though any father who would force a son who felt no call to the priesthood to become a priest and a celibate could justifiably be called abusive." (pg. 37).

As I read Rogers's review through one more time, I found that there was too many erroneous statements for me to waste my time.

Is the thesis presented by Paul Vitz substantive? That is not for me to so -I do not know- but it seems clear that the reviews's arguments against it are not.