Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism

I won't write another review - lots of pros and cons and you can judge for yourselves. Perhaps this anecdote will give you additional insight...I heard Dr. Vitz speak at UF several years ago. He presented this topic. At the end of his talk, there was a Q & A period. After several interesting but very safe questions, a young man came to the microphone and asked, "My life fits your theory to a 't.' I am an atheist and my father abandoned our family when I was small. What advice to you have for me?" Dr. Vitz thought for a moment (you could have heard a pin drop in the auditorium) and replied, "Go, find a child who is in the same situation that you were in, and be the father figure for that child." There wasn't a dry eye in the audience; I'm still moved just relating the exchange.

This is a brief but very interesting book. Professor Vitz demonstrates that Freud's famous dismissal of theistic religious belief as merely the projection of a father figure can easily be turned against atheism, as well. He could have argued, and does indeed hint, that his theory of the origins of atheism has more evidence to back it and more explanatory power than does Freudianism's dogmatic dismissal -- but, in the end, he is content with the lesser but still very important point that discussions of the truth-claims of theism will have to proceed on the basis of evidence and analysis. Smug dismissal of religious belief on the basis merely of a crude and ungrounded psychological reductionism cannot be justified. A very provocative work, and highly recommended.

I found Faith of the Fatherless readable, sympathetic, and suggestive if not absolutely persuasive. The book is admittedly anecdotal; it would be beyond the ability of one man to run his survey to "a group made up of millions," as the critic below suggests. But it seems to me Vitz gives a good sample of the most famous theists and anti-theists of the past two centuries, and I felt summarized their stories in an interesting and empathetic manner. I did not find his tone ad hominem, certainly not like Paul Johnson's Intellectuals. While I think a more whollistic undertanding of the development of spirituality would discuss moral and rational reasons for atheism or theism, as well as irrational causes such as the character of one's father, Vitz is a psychologist, after all, not primarily a philosopher. While the model he gives here may be a bit simplistic, he does not dismiss these other factors out-of-hand, as do determinists. Aside from other questionable statements, Eric Rogers' criticism below directly misrepresented Vitz on at least four points. Vitz did not make the remark imputed to him in the first paragraph; Roger has telescoped a long quotation to make him say what he did not say. Vitz did not "assume Voltaire hated his father simply because he changed his name;" he gave strong corroborative evidence for that hatred. Nor did he "assume" H.G.Wells rejected his father; he quoted him directly on the subject in an exceedingly persuasive passage. Nor, finally and most importantly, did Vitz claim that his theory determined a child's view of God. He stated directly and repeatedly that lack of a strong father figure is only a strong influencing factor. So the fact that siblings may choose different beliefs is no argument against Vitz' theory. I find it ironic that Rogers should accuse Vitz, and Christians in general by implication, of determinism, ad hominem, and illogic, when Vitz specifically rejects the shoddy deterministic logic that atheists (especially Marxists and Freudians) have used against Christianity for hundreds of years. The vehemence and inaccuracy of Roger's attack almost begs a psychological explanation itself. Faith of the Fathers should not be mistaken for an apologetic for the Christian faith, however. An atheist could even argue that the conclusion children come to who have lost their fathers is a valid inference from personal experience to the true nature of a cruel universe. The book adds to my sense of responsibility as I raise children of the same vulnerable age, and my concern as I see parents abandoning their responsibiities so easily in modern society.How might Vitz's argument apply to non-Western cultures? As I argue in Jesus and the Religions of Man (due June 2000), the concept of the Creator is both universal and surprisingly consistent around the world, even in "Hindu," "Buddhist" and tribal cultures. I find tentative corroboration of Vitz's argument in the ways Confucian thought has, for 3000 yea

Paul Vitz is a professor of psychology at New York University and was himself an atheist until his late 30's. The simple but compelling thesis of his new book is that "the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but can be called, in a general sense, psychological" (p. 5). Vitz turns Freud's projection theory of religion (belief in God is an illusion that derives from our childish need for protection and security) on its head, and argues that "the atheist's disappointment in and resentment of his own earthly father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God" (p. 16).Stated in concrete social terms, Vitz's thesis is that absent or deficient fathers predispose their children to practical, if not philosophical atheism. A good part of the book consists of 20 biographical sketches of prominent post-Enlightenment atheists, focusing on their relationships to their fathers or father figures. This group includes Friedrich Nietzche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, John-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and H.G. Wells. As a control group, the book provides biographical sketches of a similar number of prominent theists from the same period, including Blaise Pascal, Edmund Burke, Moses Mendelssohn, Soren Kierkegaard, G. K. Chesterton, and Dietrich Bonhoffer. Vitz finds that characteristically, the atheists had weak, bad or absent fathers, while the theists had good fathers or father substitutes.For the purposes of this brief review, Vitz' thesis has been greatly simplified. The book is a good deal more subtle and nuanced. The author concludes, "Since both believers and nonbelievers in God have psychological reasons for their positions, one important conclusion is that in any debate as to the truth of the existence of God, psychology should be irrelevant. A genuine search for evidence supporting, or opposing, the existence of God should be based on the evidence and arguments found in philosophy, theology, science, history, and other relevant disciplines" (p. 145).

Nietzche asked what psychological motivations lead people to accept religious views. Vitz returns the favor by exploring the relationship of atheists and their fathers. He floats the thesis that a defective or absent father can be a major factor to predispose an especially bright person to atheism, the ultimate rejection of a father figure. This book ranks with "Curing Atheism" by Cardinal Gibbons as one of the must-reads on the subject of atheism.