Book Reviews- Faith Of The Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism by Paul C. Vitz

God as an extension of human imagination:

How often have you heard the phrase "God is merely a mental crutch" or perhaps "God is simply the projection of wish fulfillment"?

This statement has filtered down to an almost unquestioned maxim in some secular nations, such as New Zealand.  The historical background is particularly important in relation to the argument and how it relates to a crisis of absent or abusive fathers that we find ourselves in at this present time.

News Headlline: "Charges over drunk 9-year-old boy"

How many people armed with the idea God is a psychological crutch have disregarded any evidence or further inquiry into the existence of God based on this idea- which in contemporary thought- has its genesis in the mind of psychology pioneer- Sigmund Freud? Though in reality the idea had an earlier champion in the form of Ludwig Feuerbach.

In his Phd thesis "Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis"  Steven Jon James Lovell (2003) writes:

The general outline of a Freudian critique of religious belief is well known. It was certainly known to C.S. Lewis. Moreover, a broadly Freudian critique seems, in the minds of many, to be a genuine obstacle and objection to accepting a religious worldview. This fact is remarkable in itself since Freudian psychology holds little weight among contemporary academics.

In other words, despite the fact that among academics of our age Freudian psychology is largely discredited or ignored, the momentum or impetus of Frued's critique of Theism remains perversely intact. The question is: Does this belie a significant bias against theistic belief? Perhaps overstating it will clarify: Is it plausible Freud could have been wrong about everything except religion as wish fulfillment?

Lovell continues:

Freud concludes that religion is therefore an illusion and, on the basis of this, goes on to claim that religion is “the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity, like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex, out of the relation to the father”

Atheism, or the non-existence of God as wish fulfullment: 

Professor of Psychology, University of New York Paul C Vitz has no objection in principle to the idea that for some people, perhaps even many, there are psychological underpinning reasons for subscribing to the idea of the existence of God. But, he hastens to add, if there are such reasons, then is it possible to explore whether or not there are equally valid psychological reasons that might underpin why some people do not believe in God?
 If the affirmative proves to be the case, then this would appear to cancel each others objections out. From this point the existence of God may move forward from ad hominem attacks to the real issue: Does or does not-God exist? It is clear- at least in Vitz's mind- that psychology precedes philosophy and theology and these issues have been used to unfairly critique religious belief, and in particular belief in the Christian God.
After all, it is quite obviously true that people may come to the conclusion that God exists for weak or inappropriate reasons, yet that does not say anything to the question itself- whether or not God exists.
Not to put too fine a point on it: It may be childish of me to believe that babies are born in a cabbage patch, in fact quite wrong to believe that's how they are born- but I am not wrong in that they are actually born- babies do exist. What one personally believes about the existence of God and my reasons for doing so, bear no relation to whether or not God exists. This is the crux of an ad hominem argument. What we believe about reality does not change what is.

Eduard von Hartmann said nearly a century ago: “it is perfectly true that nothing exists merely because we wish it, but it is not true that something cannot exist if we wish it.”

With the emphasis hinging on the words "merely because we wish it" the case is firmly put that desiring God to be real does not in itself make God real, yet, C.S. Lewis goes on to formulate an argument for the existence of God through "The Argument From Desire" This also was echoed long ago by Saint Augustine when he said: “You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You.”
C. S. Lewis had also aniticipated Vitz's research when he penned "The Pilgrims Regress" and the riddles where Madam Reason rescues John the Giant.

If the Freudian argument is true, (that beliefs are formed because of pschological predispositions) can it not also be true of atheists, even Freud?

Professor Paul C. Vitz:

Psychology as an argument [against theism] cuts both ways...I got interested in this question for two reasons- One, I'm a former atheist...in addition I had another reason- Freud said- [paraphrasing] "nothing is more familiar than to find a young person stop believing in God as soon as he loses respect for his earthly father"- in other words it's hard to believe in God if your own father is unworthy of respect or is in some important way defective... Freud never followed this up.
I came up with a hypothesis...and it can be called "the defective father hypothesis" In other words: that a father- if he's defective, sets up a strong pressure, not a totally determining one, but a strong pressure toward atheism on the part of his children.  Particularly I would think young intelligent, intellectually oriented boys.

For Vitz it was the unlikely source of Freud himself which helped spark his investigation into why people might be set up psychologically to disbelieve. He goes on in the book to document a strong case involving high profile atheists who answer in a general way this criteria and the subsequent loss or absence of faith.

Lovell referring to Christian apologist and author Alistair McGrath who quotes Freud's own confession of prejudice against belief in God:

The honest reader cannot but feel that Freud’s historical work is rather tenuous and that
he has ‘shoe-horned’ his history to fit his Oedipal theory. This feeling is only
strengthened when we read his [Freud's] comments on his historical research: “I am reading books without really being interested in them, since I already know the results; my instinct tells me that”

Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and senior research fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford concludes of Freud's religious views:

“Freud's atheistic view of the origin of religion comes prior to his study of religion; it is not its consequence.”

In other words Freud had already decided prior to his research God did not exist and therefore the reason for the existence of religion must lie elsewhere- ie in psychology.


Speaking of Vitz's research, Phd candidate Lovell writes:

Vitz goes on to collect evidence for this hypothesis by comparing prominent atheists
and theists with respect to their relationships with their fathers. A pattern emerges.
While not all of the atheists which Vitz studies had ‘defective fathers’ the large
majority did. By way of contrast, the theists were found, in nearly every case, to have
had good relationships with their fathers. Striking confirmations of the ‘defective
father’ hypothesis occur in the lives of atheists such as Friedrich Nietzsche, David
Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Arthur Schopenhauer,
Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Sigmund Freud, Madalyn Murray O’Hair and Albert Ellis.

He also observes:

..to note a few other possible psychological factors that may provide an impetus towards atheism. The first of these is a desire to fit in or to gain the respect of one’s peers. In an environment where atheism is the norm, perhaps especially among ‘intellectuals,’ there will be a strong pull towards conformity. The second is the desire for personal autonomy...

Lovell again:

If a Freudian explanation is possible for any belief we have, and if such arguments undermine our reasons for holding those beliefs then a serious question arises: can the Freudian approach avoid undermining itself?

The answer to this question must be in the negative. C.S. Lewis was here before us.

 I personally find it fascinating that Richard Dawkins regularly presents the Freudian concept of wish fulfullment in his rants against religion::

I think there is something wonderful about facing up to the universe. Because we are increasing our understanding we can throw away childhood obsessions – imaginary friends who comfort us and the need for some kind of parent figure to turn to.

When we grow up we need to cast these things aside and stand up tall in the universe. It is a cold place. We are not going to last for ever. We are going to die. Facing up to that is a nobler way of getting through life than pinning one’s hopes on childhood delusions.

and yet the god he goes on to (mis)represent could hardly be anyone's genuine desire. Who for instance would desire this sort of god? :

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

As some wit  famously said:

 "Well Richard I don't believe in the god you don't believe in either!" 

For those who never have, may I recommend G.K. Chesterton's witty book Orthodoxy which I here refer to as an appetizer. At this point he recalls the dawning of the realization that rather than everything being wrong with Christianity, he began to be aware that perhaps there was something wrong with every one of its critics! :

 A slow but awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind- the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. 

The book Faith of the Fatherless offers an interesting counter-perspective to the debate re the existence of God. There is no doubt that a persons psychological makeup has a bearing on whether or not people will ascribe to theism or not, and just being aware of the fact of the existence of both the predisposition for belief and against belief is enough to forewarn us that our faith- whether it be in atheism or theism- ought to allow for a personal bias and we do well to ground ourselves thoroughly in the evidence. If Vitz has proven any point, it is that there are as many if not more psychological reasons leading to atheism as consequence of wish fulfullment as there are to believe in God. As it has been said elsewhere: A person cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a policeman! We must look beyond our own bias.

For a fuller understanding of Vitz's work watch this interesting video clip. 

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13