You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'atheism' tag.
A recent atheist commenter wrote:
so i stumbled upon… “No, it’s not impossible to maintain, and I’m of the opinion that no amount of skepticism is enough.”
Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others.
You hear something from a friend, but you’re skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you’re skeptical of them. Where does it end?
When people say absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain, they’re not lying; it is impossible. Eventually you have to give in to trust.”I recently turned atheist. You are right i didn’t have a good relationship with my father. but arrogantly i think i am an absolute skeptic. It hurts my brain, but i think i’m closer to the truth. I would like to be a theist again, when i was happy. now being a atheist, i am depressed. but none the less, I can’t justify believing in Christianity. I wish i could but i can’t. I see so many errors in it. How do you rationally believe in Christianity, [if even possible]?
I’m responding here, not as a shrink, but as a Christian and fellow human being.
I appreciate your comment very much. I can tell from what you wrote that you are distressed by both your skepticism and your atheism. You want to believe, but you have deep doubts. You see all kinds of “errors” with Christianity.
Believe it or not, I at one time, was in a similar position. You have a lot of questions about Christianity. So did I. And we are not alone. All believers have doubts at times. In fact, I think doubt is a necessary part of faith. It wouldn’t be called faith, if there was no doubt. What I would ask you to do is to sincerely pray to God. Say something like, “God, here is what keeps me from believing in you. I want to believe, but I have trouble believing because… Please lead me to the answers of my questions.” And, start to listen for the answers. Do even more than that. Start to seek out the answers. God will accept you with all of your flaws. He accepts me, and I am as flawed as anybody. Don’t seek the answers to your questions because it will make you happy, because believers may have even more challenges. Seek the truth.
31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (1)
You ask the question:
How do you rationally believe in Christianity, [if even possible]?
I answer you unequivocally, Yes. You can rationally believe in Christianity. There have been many atheists who have rationally examined the evidence and came to believe. (2,3,4,5,6) God can help you with your skepticism if you let Him.
(1). John 8:31-32 (NASB)
(2). Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias
(3). The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
(4). The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel
(5). Who Moved the Stone, Frank Morrison
(6). Testimony of the Evangelists, Simon Greenleaf (Full Text Available Online)
I write on the psychological aspects of atheism, because academic psychology and academic tradition has been biased and focused on the psychological aspects of belief in God. I feel there needs to be a little balance to this issue. Recently, there has been some research that seems a little more even-handed in the study of belief and disbelief. It is a very large and ongoing study.
I have noted before, the association between a poor relationship with one’s father and atheism. Paul Vitz noted this association for the most extreme atheists. The recent study presents some data on the issue in terms of what atheists and believers say about their relationship with their fathers.
There certainly is a correlation here. It looks as if approximately 56% of atheists believe that they had a good relationship with their father, whereas, 62% of believers believed they had a good relationship with their fathers. Granted, that’s only about a 6% difference. So, while the association I’ve noted between relationship problems with the father and atheism exists. It does not appear to be the whole story. I would also point out, that in treatment, that beliefs about one’s relationships with one’s parents often changes during the course of treatment. Patients often come to see their relationship with their parents in a new light–the light of today’s understanding. So, I will admit that the relationship may be less strong than what I have presented before, but certainly does exist. This factor with the mother, is not associated. The study also did not examine the strength of belief and association with the relationship with one’s parents (which is the notion of Paul Vitz).
I’ve also asserted the following before:
4). They portray themselves as enlightened, intelligent, tolerant, moral, caring, accepting, loving, peaceable, and kind. And sometimes, they really and truly are. I’ve known them and met them. However, they are not tolerant, in general, of the beliefs of “believers.” They can tolerate anything but that.
I think the data broadly supports this assertion. You can see more graphs here.
The data does seem to show that atheists (on average), view themselves as more intelligent than the rest of the population.
So, as you can see, 68% of atheists believe they are more intelligent than the average person, whereas, 52% of Christians believe they are more intelligent than the average person. This is a stronger association than the assocation between the relationship with the father and atheism. So, this confirms what I’ve stated with respect to intellectual elitism and atheism. However, I would also state that I have never seen a study of IQ scores of believers vs. atheists. So it is at least possible that their beliefs about their intelligence are accurate. But on average, in my opinion, this intellectual elitism does exist.
I will continue to examine these issues in Part VI.
“The situation in the academy is such that to refer to God in any serious way would bring the legitimacy of one’s scholarship into question…..there seems to be a widespread assumption, throughout much of our intellectual community, that belief in God is based on all kinds of irrational, immature needs and wishes, whereas atheism or skepticism flows from a rational, grown-up, non-nonsense view of things as they really are.” (1)
Paul Vitz in his work on the psychology of atheism, wrote about those atheists who were intense in their passion for atheism. His thesis, is that these particular individuals, have strong psychological needs associated with their atheism. In particular this is related to an individual’s relationship with their father. It seems that this pertains more to men than women. (5)
I have worked with a number of atheists who did not have the intensity that Vitz has noted. In all cases, they have been men. However, their relationship with their father was still prominent in their relationship with God. I’m not saying that this relationship is entailed by a poor relationship with one’s father (I know of at least one person, a female, who believes in God whose father committed suicide). I know of another, a male, whose father committed suicide in front of him and struggles greatly to believe. But I noted the association (between the relationship of the fathers of men, and men themselves) before reading Vitz’s book.
Also, I have noted psychological factors distorting the faith of believers based on their experience with their father and other factors. This usually involves the realm of guilt, over things done in the past. (2)
Sigmund Freud is given both much credit and much disdain in the field of psychology. He was an atheist who had problems with his father. (3, 4) Men are approximately 7 times more likely to be atheists than women. (5) So, it seems that there is either a ‘glass ceiling’ for women and atheism, or some other factor is at work. I, for one, believe it is some other factor.
I think it has to do with the fact that men have the tendency to, identify with their fathers, and women identify with their mothers. God is represented as a male figure in the Bible, and because of these tendencies of identification, males are more likely to project their feelings onto God than females. I realize that this point is highly speculative, and that there may be other explanations.
(1). Paul C. Vitz. Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. (1999).
(2). Hindsight is 20-20 and guilt, The Country Shrink (2008 )
(3). Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism, The Country Shrink (2008 )
(4). Paul C. Vitz. Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. (1999), pp. (47-48 )
I have continued my psychological study of atheism, and have more to add on the subject (see Part I and Part II). Severe loss during childhood or adolescence and childhood unhappiness also appears to be a factor in the making of an atheist. However, this research was published in 1932, and to my knowledge has not been replicated or studied further. While the research is somewhat scant, there have been some studies that have revealed interestingly demographic and experiential associations with atheism. One study found that half of younger atheists had lost one or both parents in childhood and had an unhappy childhood and adolescence. (1) I would speculate that the rising divorce rate is a factor in current development of atheism, because on average this would result in a greater degree of absence of the father.
While the study cited above is interesting, this study is from 1932, and has not been repeated recently to my knowledge. There have been many cultural and sociological changes since that time. That said, there is some evidence to support part of the assertion of unhappiness.
“In representative surveys of the U.S. population in the 1970s and 1980s, the unaffiliated were found to be younger, mostly male, with higher levels of education and income, more liberal, but also more unhappy and more alienated in terms of the larger society.” (2)
In the US, more men than women are atheists 7% (men) versus 1.3% (women). (2)
So the factors most associated with becoming an atheist are (not ranked in order of significance):
1). loss of a parent in childhood
2). unhappy childhood/adolescent period
3). younger age
4). male (almost 7 times more likely)
5). have an avoidant attachment style
6). had relationship problems with their father (see Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism).
7). some women have had traumatic experiences with clergy (Probably for men to, but this hasn’t been studied.)
8). higher education and income
9). more liberal in political beliefs
10). more likely to self-identify as an intellectual elite and place a high value on intellectual achievement
So, it’s important to keep in mind when speaking with an atheist that they may be quiet familiar with pain and suffering personally. In my experience, they may be unlikely to reveal this and point to purely ‘intellectual’ reasons for their atheism. I’m not saying that they don’t have some intellectual reasons, but I am asserting a strong psychological component to becoming an atheist. Often, there appears to be a strong component of anger fueling their beliefs, of which they may have little awareness. It’s interesting to me, the split between men and women in atheistic beliefs, and I’m not sure of the explanation for that difference.
As an update to Part II, take a look at Paul Zachary Meyrs website (Note he eschews his Christian name for “PZ”). In particular, take a look at the comments to see if you can see the elements outlined in Part II of this series.
(1) Vetter GB, Green M: Personality and group factors in the making of atheists. J Abnorm Soc Psychology 1932–1933; 27:179–194
They use it to explain practically everything about human psychology. And when an old idea is disproved, no problem, they explain the new theory in terms of evolution. The notion of free will with an evolutionary psychologist is a non-starter. So, their research tends to follow from that.
The assumption is determinism, that “… every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.” (1)
The next assumption is that all human behavior serves an evolutionary purpose. Now, let us stop and consider for a moment the societal implications of such a view.
1). Law and its consequences are largely based on the notion of free will.
2). The notion of marriage is a religious institution..or at least that’s how it started.
3). In the US at least, we believe that all people are created equally and have sought to right wrongs against folks who were not treated as if they were created equally.
So, quite simply, one could view the motivation of evolutionary psychology as having the intent (consciously or unconsciously) of undermining the most important elements for the stability of society. Even though these elements would likely be viewed as ‘adaptive’ in allowing the species to survive. As an aside, I wonder what an evolutionary explanation would be for the study of evolutionary psychology (in other words, how is DNA preserved through this pursuit). But I digress….
So from an evolutionary psychology perspective, which has an underlying liberal political perspective in the US, people are not responsible for their behavior (”My genes made me do it!”), marriage is whatever you want it to be, and people with different characteristics could be considered less evolved or at least posing a threat to the survival of the most fit DNA.
Now all of this despite the fact that no simple aspect of human behavior has found to be genetically determined. There’s some evidence for general dispositions (emotional reactivity or sensation seeking), but as for specific behaviors, there is no evidence for any specific behavior that is tied to our genes.
So, I will present some evidence that evolutionary psychology undermines the basis for civilization, if accepted.
Evidence for the undermining of point 1.
Why Men Rape — It helps propagate the gene pool!! It’s not about power, domination, and control. What were you thinking?
Muslims Resort to Suicide Bombing with Hopes of Breeding — See point 4. It asserts that since Muslims are polygymist, that there are less females available. So the the offer of 72 virgins in the after life offers them a chance to finally propogate their genes! So, I suppose the problem of Muslim suicide bombers would be solved by allowing them to rape someone or otherwise propagate their genes. That motivation would completely disappear….right?? If you want to actually learn something about the Arab mind, I recommend ShrinkWrapped’s currently 15 part series.
Crime is the result of men’s competitive desires — See point 7. Those who act violently towards other men, may have been more likely to reproduce! So, next time you feel angry, go ahead and punch the sucker. You’re more likely to have some fun in bed if so, and if you’re lucky, keep the DNA of humans going! Or, play that midnight basketball, that will give you an outlet for you competitive strivings based on our evolutionary history….but I’m not sure how it will help you spread your genes. Worth a try though…who knows, right??
Evidence for undermining point 2.
Humans are by nature polygamist– See point 7. That’s right…and we should pass laws allowing polygamy then! It asserts that men benefit from monogamy…hmmph….and women benefit from polygamy…what?? That doesn’t seem right to me, but what the hey, I’m a man… Now, I really don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage as it is a religious institution, but that is beside the point. But we’d be fine as far as suicide bombers coming from the US go, because Christianity has no promise of virgins in the afterlife.
Homosexuality and the consolation prize — That’s right…for you homosexual males…your problem is that you can’t find a woman. And ditto (opposite obviously) for lesbians. But, again, I think marriage should be between folk and God. But the government’s involvement has sociological ramifications when they allow gay marriage…. The government should have no part in marriage.
Evidence for point 3.
Asians rock, whites are so-so, and blacks…well… Okay, so it’s just fine to be a racist. Let’s go ahead and kill off those two inferior sub-types…so that we end up with a superior gene pool. I think everyone knows where this type of thinking has led in the past.
So you think evolutionary psychology is cool??? I don’t… I think if it were accepted on large scale, it would undermine the basis of civilization. Not only that, but I think it is blatantly false in almost all of its assertions.
Now, you’ve read atheists assert that there is such a thing as free will, objective morality, and so forth without God. There’s a good post on Uncommon Descent that shows atheists who do no agree with this position. I recommend watching the video, as it is very illuminating.
What happens when we assume there is no design in life?
Here are links to my previous posts on Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism (Part I, and Part II) and Since the atheists are about the only ones commenting on my posts.
You know, I wanted to keep the dialogue focused on psychology….but, I understand that the atheists were not really interested in that. So, let’s open this post wide open. If you are here to read in this post about psychology, please read my other posts. This one will entail theology, philosophy, and science.
Jim Lippard, of “The Lippard Blog,” has delivered a number of intelligent and cogent arguments, that require the use of philosophy (primarily), logic, and science in order to address. I aim to do that to the best of my ability here. Maybe I won’t do philosophy or logic justice, because I am neither a philosopher or extremely educated in all aspects of logic (apart from the intracacies of computer science and cognitive psychology, which includes some of the major logical errors that people make)….but I will do my best.
Jim states:
“Your point 2 is a philosophical claim to the effect that morality requires the existence of at least one god. What is your support for that argument, in light of the fact that of the many meta-ethical frameworks for morality that philosophers have come up with in the last several millennia, the only one that actually requires the existence of a god is the divine command theory, which the vast majority of philosophers (since Plato’s “Euthyphro” 
agree is not a sufficient ground for morality?”
Please feel free Mr. Lipper [slip of the keyboard later corrected to Lippard], to lay out your objective notions of morality apart from God. I am waiting eagerly.
As for “Euthyphro,” I note as an aside, that the issues discussed throughout this fictional account, have to do with problems with one’s father….Seems like I had something to say about that before, but I suppose that has nothing to do with why atheists find it so compelling…since I engaged in “arm-chair” analysis.
So, we come back to naturalism, that everything that occurs is the result of natural law. That everything is the result of matter and energy. There is nothing more to nature than can be explained by the laws of nature.
Now, one law of nature is causality. You have made an unconvincing argument that such a thing as free will might exists apart from the supernatural. I ask you to back up that claim. With nature, the laws of cause and effect are inexcapable. The macroscopic world does not follow quantum mechanics where predictions are probablistic. Quantum mechanical effects occur only in the most controlled of conditions. Even if you make a claim based on quantum mechanics, you would need to make an assertion about how this might result in free will. I assume that you believe that you have logically and freely chosen your atheism. However, this cannot be the case within the worldview of naturalism. If you have a different worldview, please feel free to make it explicit. Within the laws of causality, you have no more chosen to be an atheist than a snowflake has chosen to form, the complexity of which you deem as sufficient for nullifying ideas of intelligent design. From the beginning with the “big bang” all things were set in motion to occur in exactly the way they occured with no possibility for any alternatives, no possibility for any free will.
So, as a result, people who come to believe in God, do so because of how things played out in the evolution of the universe. And people who don’t believe in God, do so because of how things played out in the evolution of the universe. Now if everything occurs in a cause and effect chain, what is your basis for determining anything is moral or amoral? You only say so because of the cause and effect chain. You are just matter and energy, what are the moral imperatives of matter and energy?
Can you explain consciousness? You cannot. Science has not even scratched the surface here. You may make appeals to quantum mechanics, but they are only appeals and unsupported by any objective data. Anything you say that would support free will is only an assertion with no clear empirical backing. So the fact that you choose to be moral in certain ways is only a result of the random interaction of particles and matter. Completely meaningless. If you harm another human being, so what, you’ve possibly changed the state of matter. Big deal. States of matter change all the time. What is the objective moral opposition to murder from a materialistic perspective? “Thou shalt not knowingly change the state of matter???” You may say that you may incur punishment as a result. But what does mere matter and energy care about something that changes it’s state. Apparently it does…
Now, Euthyphro’s dilemma was based around inconsistencies in the Greek pantheon. Yet, you want to apply this dilemma to the beliefs of Christians.
For a discussion of Euthyphro’s dilemma from a Christian perspective, see this link.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024
So, you accuse me of not providing any evidence for my position, when you have not provided a shread for your own….that atheists can have an objective basis for morality. I eagerly await you and your fellow atheists to provide such an objective basis.
Apart from the early experiences, such as some type of relationship problem with their father (absent, harsh, criticizing, or some other relationship problem), it is interesting to view the current psychological characteristics of atheists.
1). They tend to take the moral high ground. They look down on believers as simplistic, uneducated, stupid, weak, intolerant, gun toting, racists, and simple minded dolts.
2). They tend to not be able to understand that their position means “anything goes,” with respect to morality. If there is no God, then there is no objective thing as morality. It’s all subjective… They always find some way to justify the fact that they practice at least some moral principles. Whether they think it’s biologically ingrained through millions of years of evolution or morality is simply “adaptive in allowing the species to survive.” Most often; however, they have never even considered the logical consequences of atheism and morality.
3). There is something in their lives that they are afraid they would have to give up if they believed in God. It’s usually some pattern that brings them pleasure in a way that they feel believers might label as immoral. They are typically not conscious of this.
4). They portray themselves as enlightened, intelligent, tolerant, moral, caring, accepting, loving, peaceable, and kind. And sometimes, they really and truly are. I’ve known them and met them. However, they are not tolerant, in general, of the beliefs of “believers.” They can tolerate anything but that.
5). Just like the fervent believer, they have trouble avoiding proselytising their belief system. They often try to promote their views to believers. They get a kick out seeing believers squirm when they ask them some deep philosophical question which the believer has not considered nor been confronted with.
As an aside, in treatment, I’ve noted a number of youngsters who are constipated, like to “crap on people rather than in the toilet.” Once they start utilizing the toilet appropriately, they stop utilizing people as a repository for their bound up bodily functions. They have to be taught to drink appropriate amounts of water and eat fiber to achieve this.
6) They find a replacement for “religion.” Whether it’s the environment, political causes, sociological wrongs, whatever, but they find a replacement. They have the notions of sin, redemption, and salvation, in their substitute belief system.
7) They pretend their emotional and psychological system has nothing to do with their lack of belief. But readily attribute psychological factors to those who do believe (i.e., needing a crutch, simple minded, lacking education, delusional). They espouse that naturalism is the true faith of intellectuals. Only a simple and weak minded fool would believe anything different.
Now, I have only seen or read about one logically consistent atheist…..Jeffrey Dahmer. There have been philosophers, I know, who have come to this logical conclusion. But I’m talking about someone who logically practiced what he believed.
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” (1)
So said Dahmer. I’ve not met a single atheist who can even come close to this degree of logical consistency, thank God! But they always skirt around this issue and never admit the logical consistency of Dahmer’s claims. To that extent, I think it’s good for society. However, it would be difficult for many atheists not to question their position if they were to admit the logical consistency of Dahmer’s argument.
(1). http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/06/jeffrey-dahmer-and-answers-in-genesis.html
“Freud saw psychology as a scientific replacement for religion. Psychological theory replaces outmoded religious beliefs about the human person. And psychoanalytic techniques replace religious practices.” (1)
Freud noted that the, “analysis is not complete” until the patient’s religious views were analyzed. I agree, but in the opposite way that Freud envisioned.
There are often clear psychological reasons that a person becomes an ‘atheist.’ Most often, the thing that gets in the way of faith, is the relationship with the individual’s father. Specifically, if the father was harsh and cruel, the individual will often come to impute or displace these characteristics onto God. They will often see God as “harsh and cruel.” The father doesn’t necessarily have to be harsh or cruel, there can be many factors and varieties of the problematic relationship.
“God can’t exist because there is evil in the world.” Many atheists come to believe that there is no God, because of the fact of “evil” in the world. And, that if there is a God, he must be cruel because of the bad things he allows to happen (murder, rape, natural disasters, and so forth).
I’ve heard it said, “If there was a God, then why do so many bad things happen to good people.”
They can’t conceive of a “heavenly father,” who loves them and who cares about the world. They ‘project’ their feelings toward their earthly father onto God. They believe that there is such a thing as “good people.”
So far, I have not seen a single atheist who does not have relationship problems with their father. Or often, if they believe, their belief is distorted by their relationship with their father. They project (direct or displace) their feelings toward their father onto God.
I’m not saying that this is the only psychological reason that one becomes an atheist, but it is the one I have observed frequently.
It’s interesting to look at Freud as an example.
In his 40s, Freud “had numerous psychosomatic disorders as well as exaggerated fears of dying and other phobias” (Corey 2001, p. 67). During this time Freud was involved in the task of exploring his own dreams, memories, and the dynamics of his personality development. During this self-analysis, he came to realize the hostility he felt towards his father (Jacob Freud), who had died in 1896…(2)
Charles Darwin is also noted as having a problematic relationship with his father. In the course of researching for this post, I discovered that I am not the first to connect the idea of problematic relationships with the father and atheism. It turns out there is a book entitled, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
Many times, I have seen patients resolve their emotional conflict about God in the context of their feelings toward their fathers. When they come to see that they have displaced their feelings toward their earthly fathers onto the heavenly One, they are often able to develop a relationship with God, without the emotional baggage.
(1). http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-F2–00.HTM
(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
See also, Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism Part II and Part III, and Since atheists are about the only ones responding to my post.
Recent Comments