A few years ago, my cousin informed me that his minister delivered a sermon on
atheism. The minister indicated that in men, the best predictor of atheism is
bad relationships with their fathers. “YOU had a bad relationship with YOUR
father and now YOU are an atheist!” This bothered me, because it was true. And,
while I was certain that there was no causal relationship between my atheism
and conflicts I had with my father, I could completely understand how this
coincidence might inspire a compelling sense in my cousin that his minister had
nailed it.
I looked for research on atheism and father issues and found
a piece called “The Psychology of Atheism,” by Paul C. Vitz, a psychology
professor at NYU.[1] Dr. Vitz admits to a
brief period of atheism in his youth which he attributes to social
conformity
(Interestingly, he does not attribute his subsequent Catholicism to social
conformity). I have great respect for information yielded from well-controlled
scientific studies in the field of psychology. However, “The Psychology of
Atheism” doesn’t cite a single scientific reference. Not one! To my knowledge,
no supporting scientific evidence exists for Dr. Vitz’ theory.
Vitz’ essay presents an anecdotal argument that since
Hobbes, Voltaire, Freud, Zedong, and Hitler all had fathers who were weak,
unloving, or not present, then father issues must have caused their atheism. In
fact, while all of these men questioned dominant religions, Hobbes was a
Christian[2], Voltaire a Deist[3],
Zedong a Buddhist/Taoist[4], and Hitler a Catholic. Pope
Pius XI negotiated the Reichskonkordat agreement, which actually lent
moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime in Germany.[5] And, Hitler
made his views on God very clear, “My feelings as a Christian points me to my
Lord and Savior as a fighter."[6]
Freud was an actual atheist and did a good deal of
philosophical writing on the topic. In “The Future of an Illusion,” he
reasoned that as children, we are weak, ignorant, and helpless by nature. We
are comforted through childhood by parents whom we consider strong,
knowledgeable, and invulnerable. As adults, when we realize the imperfections
of our parents, we would once again be thrown into a deep sense of fallibility.
Freud believed it an adaptive evolutionary trait to invent invisible, magical
parents who were all-knowing, all powerful, and immortal. Like our terrestrial
parents, the magical ones protect us from danger, punish us when we are bad,
reward us when we are good, and have the answers to all of our questions.[7]
Let’s stop here and ask a question. Which argument seems
more reasonable? Freud’s argument that man invented God to fill in the gap left
by Earthly parents, or Vitz’ argument that the atheist is angry at his Heavenly
Father because of a bad relationship with his Earthly one? Neither argument was
based in scientific research, but one will “feel” more true to you depending on
your own pre-existing beliefs.
There are obviously many rational problems with making assumptions
about an enormous and diverse population like the atheists based on the idea
that Freud and I had bad relationships with our fathers. Vitz cannot assume
that this is the case for other atheists, since no supporting data exists. It
is likely that many men have rocky relationships with their fathers. Some of
them happen to become atheists while others happen to become theists.
Without evidence, neither can we assume that Freud is
accurate in his assumption that all religious people have needs for safety and
answers. In this case, however, scientific evidence abounds. The fight or
flight response is present in all animals, including humans.[8] Likewise,
curiosity is an intrinsic human motivator.[9] A
2003 article cites numerous studies from scientific journals supporting Freud’s
basic assertions that religious thought is a natural by-product of brain
function[10].
Discerning and using objective evidence to determine
accuracy is a relatively new development in humans. Making broad assumptions
without sufficient evidence is much more characteristic of the way humans
think. In simple terms, the mind is a machine that takes tiny amounts of
information, makes sweeping generalizations, then “feels” these generalizations
are accurate and reasonable. This is a fundamental cognitive error responsible
for much death and suffering across the ages. Tendencies towards making
sweeping generalizations are hard wired into us and are essential to navigating
human life.[11] Imagine having to consider the
universe of potential outcomes prior to every decision you make. NOT making
sweeping generalizations based on small amounts of information would completely
paralyze us!
So, we work within our inherent limitations and try our best
not to screw up. One way to avoid screw ups is the choice to consciously
override gut feelings whenever reason and overwhelming objective evidence
disputes said feelings. In other words, if the majority of scientific evidence
says one thing and my gut says the opposite, my gut has a high likelihood of
being wrong. Science is never able to provide the absolute answer, only the
best possible answer according to evidence available at a given time.
Just for kicks, I researched the best predictors of atheism.
What I found brought a broad smile to my face. Turns out a primary predictor of
atheism is… IQ.[12]
.jpg)
[1] "Faith of the Fatherless:
The Psychology of Atheism Paperback – October 18, 2013." Faith of the
Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism: Paul C. Vitz: 9781586176877: Amazon.com:
Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[2] Fuller, Timothy "The Idea
of Christianity in Hobbes’s Leviathan." JSTOR (n.d.): n. pag.
JSTOR 192.168.82.205, 27 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[3] "Voltaire -
Biography." Voltaire. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[4] "Religion - East and
Southeast Asia - Modern China." - Mao, Religious, Daoist, and Zedong.
N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[5] Peter Hebblethwaite; Paul VI,
the First Modern Pope; Harper Collins Religious; 1993; p.118
[6] Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12
April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April
1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
[7] "The Future of an Illusion
Paperback – June 30, 2011." The Future of an Illusion: Sigmund Freud:
9781614270867: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[8] "The Enduring Importance
of Animal Models in Understanding Periodontal Disease." Taylor
& Francis. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[9] "The Oxford Handbook of
Human Motivation ." Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[10] Boyer, Pascal.
"Religious Thought and Behaviour as By-products of Brain
Function." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7.3 (2003): 119-24. Web.
[11] "Cognitive StudiesVol.
10 (2003) No. 1 P 76-92." Developmental and Computational
Neuroscience Approaches to Cognition: The Case of Generalization. N.p., n.d.
Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[12] Zuckerman, M., J. Silberman,
and J. A. Hall. "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A
Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations." Personality and Social
Psychology Review 17.4 (2013): 325-54. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting!