Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
On the psychology of atheism?

On the psychology of atheism?

Last updated on: February 9, 2022 at 1:34 pm by Dan Peterson

On the psychology of atheism? 2022-02-09T13:34:19-07:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A scene from yestereve’s walk here at Ko Olina, taken with my iPhone

***

I originally published this column in Provo’s Daily Herald, back around 14 April 2000, under the title “Faith of the Fatherless.” In the past two or three days, my blog’s most dogged resident atheist commenter has suggested that theistic belief originates in psychological defect and insinuates that, if I understood psychology, I would see things his way. So I thought that there might be some value in dusting it off and sharing it again:

A widespread assumption, especially among intellectuals, holds that belief in God derives from irrational, immature needs and wishes, whereas atheism or skepticism results from a grown-up, rational, no-nonsense view of the world as it really is. The most famous statement of this position comes from Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book The Future of an Illusion. According to Freud, religion is an attempt to cope with our cosmic helplessness by imagining a benevolent father figure in the sky. Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura recently declared that religion is for people with weak minds.

New York University psychology professor Paul Vitz disputes such notions in his book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. Vitz says that Freud’s theory reveals Freud’s own inadequate knowledge in matters of religion. The pagan faiths of the Mediterranean area, for instance, offered no benevolent father God, and major living religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism lack such a figure. Furthermore, as Vitz observes, “nowhere did Freud publish a psychoanalysis of the belief in God based on clinical evidence provided by a believing patient.” In other words, Freud’s doctrine rests not on scientific data, but on preconceptions and anti-religious prejudices. There is, in fact, growing evidence to suggest that those who lead religious lives tend to be healthier than those who do not, both psychologically and physically.

In fact, Vitz remarks, the idea that a belief might derive from childish needs or powerful unconscious wishes is a sword that can cut two ways. If, for example, one accepts the Freudian theory of the so-called “Oedipus complex,” Vitz writes, one can easily view atheism as “an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father (God) and replace him with oneself.” Indeed, in Faith of the Fatherless, he argues that vocal or intense atheism tends to be “generated by the peculiar psychological needs of its advocates.” Among his examples is a famous French skeptic who thoroughly rejected his father, repudiated his father’s name (Arouet) in order to call himself “Voltaire,” and even wrote a play entitled Oedipus.

Vitz proposes what he terms “the defective father hypothesis” as an explanation of atheism. In an essay on Leonardo da Vinci, Freud remarked that “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 the father breaks down.”

Vitz takes Freud at his word. He examines a representative list of prominent atheists—including Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Josef Stalin, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, H. G. Wells, Adolf Hitler, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Mao Tse Tung, and Sigmund Freud himself—and finds a surprisingly consistent pattern of weak, abusive, absent, despised, or dead fathers. In strong contrast, such believers as mathematician-philosopher Blaise Pascal, theologian Karl Barth, statesman Edmund Burke, John Henry Cardinal Newman, anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce, philosopher-bishop George Berkeley (for whom the California university town is named), theologian and anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, cultural observer Alexis de Tocqueville, religious thinker Sören Kierkegaard, writer G. K. Chesterton, theologian-musician-medical missionary Albert Schweitzer, and Jewish theologians Martin Buber and Abraham Joshua Heschel enjoyed healthy relationships with their fathers or father-substitutes.

Atheism might be dismissed as a comforting illusion, a belief unworthy of mature minds. But Vitz (himself an atheist into his late thirties) concludes, simply, that since both believers and unbelievers have psychological reasons for their positions, questions of faith have to be answered on the basis of evidence, not name-calling. Whatever our relationships with our fathers, we remain free to exercise faith, or not to. But we must wonder, with Professor Vitz, how the breakdown of the American family and the weakening of fatherhood will affect our children. Churches may have yet another reason for concern about these trends.

And this column, which I published in the Deseret News on 2 February 2017, is also directly relevant to the claim:

“Is religious faith a mental illness?”

***

While on the subject of psychology and mental illness: When my wife and I were sitting in the Delta Airlines lounge in Los Angeles several days ago, waiting for our very early morning flight to Maui, I suddenly heard extremely loud talking behind me. It was a group of about four or five men, all of whom looked and sounded Middle Eastern. Iranian, I would guess, although they were speaking in accented English. One of them was far and away the loudest. He was wearing a red MAGA hat. “Make America Great Again!” They never sat down, but continued to speak in extremely elevated voices. I had been reading, and I tried not to listen. Eventually, though, it became simply impossible. Everybody in the lounge was watching them. They may have been drunk, which, given the hour, suggests that they had been up all night. The really loud one said something about its being his birthday, so they were headed somewhere on a flight.

Pretty soon, it became apparent that the really loud one — let’s call him TRLO, for the sake of convenience — was very much agitated because one of the Delta agents there had asked him to put on a mask. (There were signs at the entrance and throughout the lounge saying that masks were required.) Several more Delta people came, one after another, asking him to don a mask. A soft-spoken middle-aged lady came and told him that he should show some respect for everyone else by putting on a mask and quieting down. He informed her that she was an idiot. He then proceeded to give the entire lounge a lecture on his freedoms and on the idiocy of wearing masks.

Finally, another Delta agent came and told TRLO to leave. “Are you throwing me out of the Delta lounge?” he demanded, loudly. “Yes, I am. Leave now.”

He yelled all the way out, but finally he and his pals did exit the lounge. The episode lasted about ten or fifteen minutes. I was greatly relieved that they weren’t on our flight. I didn’t relish the thought of getting about an hour offshore and then perhaps having to return because this belligerent boor wouldn’t comply with Delta regulations.

I’m astonished that some so-called conservatives — as this fellow might perhaps have described himself, though perhaps not — often don’t seem to recognize the fact that their freedoms are not unlimited when they’re on someone else’s private property. One can argue the merits or demerits of government mask requirements and vaccine mandates. But no thoughtful genuine believer in the rights of private property can seriously argue that a private individual, association, or company doesn’t have substantial rights to limit what is said and what is done in spaces that it owns. If Delta wants to insist that its patrons wear leopard skin pants and propeller beanies and speak only pig Latin or go elsewhere, that is entirely within its rights. If it chooses to insist that its patrons wear anti-COVID masks, that is entirely within its rights. As it is the complete right of potential patrons, if such rules are decreed, to go elsewhere.

Posted from Ko Olina, Oahu, Hawaii

Uncategorized

Armand Nicholi

atheism

defective father hypothesis

Faith of the Fatherless

Freud

Future of an Illusion

Previous Post

February 5, 2022

Progress, Science, and Religion

Next Post

February 8, 2022 Evil and Death Amid Beauty on the Road to the Temple

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What kind of bird did Noah send out second from the ark?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Eagle Pidgeon Owl Dove