In 1999, Psychologist Paul C. Vitz published his post mortem study on the lives of 32 famous Atheists and 21 famous Theists. His study was intended to determine statistically if any common psychological denominator existed which could differentiate a potential Atheist from a potential Theist. He found that with only the exceptions of Marx and Diderot, the common factor between Atheists was defective fathering: the father was dead, missing, abusive, or weak. Amongst Theists, fathering was strong and supportive.
This study has been criticized based on the lack of in depth personal interviews done with these (dead) individuals. Yet the statistics are compelling. At least as compelling as IQ statistics, if not more.
22 comments:
My dad was quite strong and supportive, and I'm an ath...
Oh wait. Not anymore.
:)
After reading your post Stan, I honestly thought that there was a point to be made. A very good one!
It makes sense that some people become Atheists because they have an absent father. Why? Because most people get into a religion because of the influence of their parents, as children. Not having a father around, or a disfunctional one, might influence the child to either look for alternatives or simply rebel against the paternal figure's religion. It does not mean much thought since it does not make the rejected religion right or wrong, nor does it render Atheism correct or not. It would just explain the reasons why certain kids stop following their father's beliefs....
... but then I also found this interesting review....
*** *** *** ***
"First of all, I want to state my "credentials" for writing this review. I am one of the "intense" atheists whom Paul Vitz attempts to psychoanalyze in his book. I am also author of the book "Atheist Universe," which Paul Vitz would undoubtedly describe as extremist in its defense of absolute atheism. I am also author of what is probably the world's most widely used patient handout for clients of cognitive-behavior psychotherapy (published by The Albert Ellis Institute).
If these two facts permit me to express a personal opinion on the relationship of psychology to atheism, then I would like to submit that this book is the worst piece of unscientific garbage I've ever read. This book perhaps reflects the author's own life experiences or those of his friends or associates. I don't know. But there is no valid science whatever to backup any assertion in this book connecting atheism and a lacking father figure. The opposite is very likely true. Those who lack a loving earthly father most feel the need to invent a loving heavenly father as a substitute. My own father was (and still is) the most incredibly loving parent any child could hope for. Although he has Parkinson's Disease, he is invariably upbeat, positive and ALWAYS loving and supportive of me. But I am by no means alone. Virtually every atheist I ever met boasted exceptionally good parents, both fathers AND mothers.
What truly angers me about this book is that it is so very insulting to many atheists and their families. Trust me, as an atheist author, I'm very used to receiving my daily dose of Christian hate mail. I take such bombast in stride. If people such as Paul Vitz want to disagree with atheists on theological issues, that's certainly their perfect right. However, it ceases to be a right when someone, completely without justification, attempts to slander and degrade someone else's father or other family members. I wonder how Paul Vitz would react if I wrote a book stating that "anyone claiming a relationship between atheism and a poor father figure must himself have fat, stupid children." Such a nexus on my part would be viewed, not only as an indication of ignorance, but as evidence of my lack of common civility. Yet an identically absurd and insulting position is the very foundation of his entire trash-talk book.
Science does not care whether its conclusions insult or flatter us. So I'm in no way asserting that a valid scientific study should be suppressed because it hurts my feelings or those of other atheists. I'm merely stating that Paul Vitz's book is not a valid scientific study.
David Mills,
Author of "Atheist Universe"
David Mills is not, repeat not, mentioned in Vitz's book; he is one of the most irrational of the Atheist authors now on bookshelves.
His rant, above, gives only charges without substance, without any meaty refutation which he should be able to provide, given his outrage. But rather his point is:
"this book is the worst piece of unscientific garbage I've ever read".
In what regard unscientific? It's because he is insulted.
"What truly angers me about this book is that it is so very insulting to many atheists and their families. "
So which part of the book is false, and why?
"However, it ceases to be a right when someone, completely without justification, attempts to slander and degrade someone else's father or other family members."
David Mills is missing a pinion. I'm surprised that you took this as a serious refutation. That does reflect on your judgment, given the total lack of reasoning in Mill's emotional rage-fest.
As for your comment,
"Not having a father around, or a disfunctional one, might influence the child to either look for alternatives or simply rebel against the paternal figure's religion."
What actually happens is that the juvenile rebels against both the abandoning parent and the remaining mother who cannot provide masculine role modelling; this extends into rebellion against all authority, which fits exactly with Atheism, but not with submission to any power above the self. The individual becomes self-derived and self-involved in the sense that all thought is without any authority beyond the self. This includes logic and morality.
Makes sense. God is just a souped-up version of the father anyway.
To the Materialist, that is the case.
David Mills is not, repeat not, mentioned in Vitz's book
Ohhhh, so by 'I am one of the "intense" atheists whom Paul Vitz attempts to psychoanalyze in his book', he meant that he's 'like' these atheists. That's misleading...
he is one of the most irrational of the Atheist authors now on bookshelves.
Isn't being an Atheist already the worst thing a human being can be?
You said it's worst than being a child molester or rapists...
In what regard unscientific?
I have not read the book so correct me if I am wrong... what's unscientific is to have picked a few well known Atheists and analyze their relationship with their fathers in order to generalize. Did the author really do it that way?
Psychology is the rigorous, empirical study of human thought and behavior. Vitz does not provide any systematic data to back his ideological assertions. This is not surprising, since if you research his rather sad record of publications he does not appear to have ever published any empirical data based papers on the subject of the psychology of religion. I cannot find a single work of his that appears in a peer reviewed accredited psychology journal. The psychology of religion is a major subject area in psychology and plenty of articles (many favorable to religion) are published all the time in top tier psych journals. Vitz clearly just is not interested in actually testing his ideas against data. This is understandable since none of his ideas are defensible by either logic or any remotely established psychological theory.
The main theoretical source he relies on is an intellectually dishonest twisting of Freud, whose ideas (and similarly non-empirical methods) were discredited in psychology decades ago.
This book is a perfect example of snake oil pop psych for the uninformed masses that serves only to mislead the public about real state of evidence based psychology.
Guy,
your attack is on the person, not on the ideas of that person. If you can discredit what he has said, then feel free to actually do so. Otherwise, your comment is merely Ad Hominem and thus without merit in refuting his work.
As for being Freud oriented, that seems false on the face of it. What Vitz did was statistical, based on known strong members of both sides of the equation, not a Freudian-type projection without any data.
If you don't care for his data, then refute the data. If you don't care for his conclusions, then show the logic by which you refute them.
What you have done is to try to smear Vitz and his work using the following accusations:
1.No systematic data; False. He presents his system and the data.
2. No peer reviewed papers. Inconsequential: an appeal to authority as in credentialism.
3. Not defensible using logic or established theory: This charge is without any teeth until it is proven illogical; whether it conforms to established theory has no effect on its truth value, and is a charge without meaning.
4. Method is a "twisting of Freud", which is another undefined charge, but if the charge against Freud is lack of statistical evidence, then it is a false charge.
5. "This book is a perfect example of snake oil pop psych for the uninformed masses that serves only to mislead the public about real state of evidence based psychology"
This is a rant-type of charge which is not defended with any sort of refutation of Vitz's claims, either logic-based or empirically-based. It is in fact a slander, rather than a reasoned refutation.
In short, you have shown nothing to refute anything which Vitz has presented; you have only attacked Vitz himself and slandered his presentation without refuting it. This sort of "defense" of the Atheist dogma is rationally indefensible.
"I have not read the book so correct me if I am wrong... what's unscientific is to have picked a few well known Atheists and analyze their relationship with their fathers in order to generalize. Did the author really do it that way? "
Read the book and criticize it directly with logic and empirical data. No one else who is complaining here has done so. You could be the first.
eternal,
"Isn't being an Atheist already the worst thing a human being can be?
You said it's worst than being a child molester or rapists..."
Again you twist the meaning; that's a nasty habit you have.
Atheists are considered untrustworthy comparable to rapists; it doesn't mean that they are, it means that they cannot demonstrate that they aren't. And so perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. So they cannot earn trust.
Now twisting meanings as you clearly do, and insisting on your own personal definitions, and choosing definitions which smuggle in surreptitious sub-meanings: all of that goes along with the issue of not generating trust, doesn't it? Yes, it does.
Mill's book is a sequence of non-sequiturs in the service of Philosophical Materialism, which is in the service of Atheism. I started to write a review of that book once, but every page has multiple logic fallacies, and to catalog them was an effort as big as writing an entire book of refutations. I think I might have analyzed some of his major points somewhere, I don't actually remember.
An electronic version of this book is floating around.
Book is an exercise in cherry picking anecdotes.
What do we want? Evidence based science. When do we want it? After peer review.
No idea how Hitler, a theist, suddenly becomes an atheist for the purpose of this book.
Book is hyper-reductionist. Complex ideas? Nah, it's all about childhood.
When is Vitz going to submit work for peer-review or test his theories empirically? Never because he's making too much money off people who want to coat their hatred of atheists with a fake veneer of science. Anyone who is not emotionally attached to the premise of the book will see very quickly that this book is not to be taken remotely seriously.
The latest Vitz book that is available in which Vitz denounces Psychology. Wake me up when Vitz wants to do some science.
every page has multiple logic fallacies, and to catalog them was an effort as big as writing an entire book of refutations. I think I might have analyzed some of his major points somewhere, I don't actually remember
Ya i think the same of the Bible.
Should we start with Genesis?
Do whatever you want; but look at the Atheist sites first because they've already done it. And they are literal interpretationists, too. And that's what they hate about the Christian literalists. But Mill intended no literary devices in his book. So it is far easier to refute.
But go ahead, or are you just being a smart ass?
"What do we want? Evidence based science. When do we want it? After peer review."
No Atheist wants this. Atheism cannot pass it. Materialism cannot pass it. Humanism cannot pass it. Virtue Ethics cannot pass it. Consequentialism cannot pass it. They only want it when they get criticism they don't like, but they also don't produce any evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific refutation, either. It's all Ad Hominem blather.
So they bleat a lot about science. But they don't really want it applied to themselves. They are engaged in blind faith, religiously defended with no logic or empirical support, but are demanding in arrogant tones that everyone else meet the standards which they cannot.
If Vitz has lied, or if Vitz has misrepresented, or if Vitz has hidden contrary data, or if Vitz has in any manner produced falseness, then show it.
None of his distractors show anything. They throw slime around, but they prove nothing, empirically, peer reviewed, regarding Vitz's claims. The detractors apparently have no case to present. So they present only empty trash talk and nothing else.
"No idea how Hitler, a theist, suddenly becomes an atheist for the purpose of this book."
Hitler didn't. Vitz says that Hitler "did retain a modest, if rather abstract, belief in God".
So this complaint derives from not having even read the book, not even the scant 1 1/2 pages on Hitler. It is not uncommon for Atheists to level bitter diatribes against books which they never read; this must be one of those cases. That being the case, it is a demonstration of a blind faith dogmatic defending his dogma in complete ignorance of the opposition.
if (Statement Stan likes) then "Prove it wrong"!
if (statement Stan dislike) then "Prove it!"
Robot,
That is exactly right. Atheists claim to be the sole possessors of logic and evidence. They claim that their positions are logic and evidence based. Yet they never prove anything, be it to prove themselves correct in their own positions, or to prove others incorrect in their positions.
It is exactly right and proper to demand that Atheists use their superb powers of intellect to produce the logic and evidence which they claim to possess.
But they never do. Never. Ever.
if (book of anecdotes about atheists makes atheists seem bad)
then ([for Stan] accept unconditionally and describe as science)
Do whatever you want; but look at the Atheist sites first because they've already done it. And they are literal interpretationists, too. And that's what they hate about the Christian literalists. But Mill intended no literary devices in his book. So it is far easier to refute.
But go ahead, or are you just being a smart ass?
Why would I look at an Atheist site first? That would induce a bias, don't you think?
The point was that if we start with an open mind, grounded in LOGIC AND FACTS, the Bible does not stand scrutiny. But it would be too long to go through all of it because, as you said for the other book:
every page has multiple logic fallacies, and to catalog them was an effort as big as writing an entire book of refutations.
So, as I said, should we start with Genesis?
Are you able to not assume that God exists?
I would certainly not assume that God does not exist... but I would not discard the facts about reality that you despise so much either (you know, the Earth is at least 4 billion years old and stuff like that...)
Ah let's cut to the chase, let's just give a sneak peak of why it would not work:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light...
Oh so this book is poetic, right? Surely we should not take that literally; it's illogical to say that the Earth was formless and empty, yet there was waters; it does not make sense either to say that 'light' was started all of a sudden on Earth.
Don't you see why it's complete non-sense? we would never be able to go through this book without assuming that God exists... Nothing makes sense otherwise. Yet you will continue fighting that Atheists are illogical people who are dogmatic about their position. I never need to assume that God does not exist; but Christian need to in order to read the Bible...
eternal,
I have never denied, nor would I ever deny that the earth is billions of years old. Your presupposition is incorrect.
As for applying logic and evidence to a book which communicates via parable and metaphor is illogical in itself, whether you accept that or not. Entire stories and books are parables / metaphors. If you take it literally, as you seem to wish, which translation will you choose to use? None are direct translations of the pictographic ancient Hebrew.
So, if you are to refute it, you will need to refute the original Hebrew in the pictographic symbology in the cultural understanding which they had and for which it was intended. Are you up for that? There is an ancient Hebrew site which does a “mechanical” (unbiased by modern culture) translation symbol by symbol; there are other ancient Hebrew sites which give all the possible known usages for each symbol (Ancient Hebrew was pictographic rather than alphabetical). You don’t like the physical science portrayed there? Why does it matter? If Moses were waxing forth in parable form, then the entire first five books could well be just that, parables. If Moses were describing his understanding of what the deity gave him to believe, and the deity gave it to him in parable form… So what? You want to compare that to current science go right ahead, but make sure you take General Relativity into account when calculating the timing of the big Bang, OK? See you on the far side of all that. Then take into account that no supposed refutation of the Bible using contingent knowledge can be taken to have any truth value. Further it has no bearing on the existence of a creating agent.
But on to your Objective Worldview. You want to ignore words now and go for concepts. Every time I tried to parity check your word inputs by repeating my understanding of your statements, you told me I was wrong. That was based on words. How are you going to ignore words, yet convey concepts when even the word transfer didn’t work?
But go on ahead. Might I suggest that you let us all know what you think a worldview consists of? Concept-wise, of course. Even better, here is one aspect of a worldview which you might start with, just the one for simplicity and to see how this goes:
How does your Atheist viewpoint of the value of human life derive from physical sources? Or if not derived from physical sources, then from non-physical but not from subjective sources (i.e. you yourself or someone like you)?
And then defend the difference between the Atheist and the Theist understandings, where the Atheist view is not influenced by the absence of a moral authority (God), and does not start with the absence of that moral authority, and further, if considering that such a moral authority might, in fact, exist, the Atheist would have to change his worldview to accommodate that.
This should be interesting.
I should address this:
"Don't you see why it's complete non-sense? we would never be able to go through this book without assuming that God exists... Nothing makes sense otherwise. Yet you will continue fighting that Atheists are illogical people who are dogmatic about their position."
You are somehow surprised that the Bible, which is about God, the Hebrews, etc, actually presupposes that God exists?
The Bible is not written to convince skeptics of anything. It is not for skeptics. It claims, in fact, that skeptics cannot understand it. That much is obviously the case. Presumably that is because Skeptics reject its presupposed premise a priori. That is of no concern to the authors or to those who value it. No one cares what skeptics think of the Bible except other skeptics who are in the same attack club.
If you want absolute proof from apologetics, or if you want scientific proof of non-scientific issues, or if you want a deity on your front porch delivering the contents of your prayers as soon as you pray, you are in the wrong place.
But if you want to apply contingent knowledge to it as the decisive test of the existence of a deity, then go ahead - and no one cares except the other dogmatics who are similarly inclined.
I personally think that this is the biggest difference between Materialist Atheism and Theism, that Materialist Atheists want the contingent Materialist knowledge of the moment to supercede that which others see as incorrigible, axiomatically. Atheists want that desperately, as is seen by their constant attacks. But Theists are not concerned with Atheist theories, because they see something of value well beyond whatever it is that Atheists see. Others see Atheist attacks as an attempt by Atheists to retain themselves as the ultimate beings in the universe, who are responsible to no one else for moral authority or for logical rigor, a suspicion which is fortified by the obvious need of Atheists to control and denigrate the other by their constant attempts to destroy theist concepts using whatever illogic comes to hand.
The chasm between Atheist contingent knowledge as belief and Theist incorrigible axioms is not challenged by puking on the difference in the origins story presented in the Hebrews' book as compared to theoretical cosmology. Atheists seem completely unable to understand that this is the case.
I am never surprised to an increase in atheist rate. It was expected. If after my birth I find out that my mom never knew who my father was or that after years of marriage they suddenly decided they were not fit for each other I will probably end up thinking God doesn’t exist. How can he when all his so called devotees ask for constant wars? Maybe God is artificially created to just destroy? If my sorrowful mind declares this to be true I will also make sure that my friend who comes from a complete family does not see him either.
Post a Comment