One time a student came to my office and rather doggedly and aggressively said, “I don’t believe in God.” I knew the student a bit and I knew the student’s family, and I knew enough about the situation to say something that can only be taken as a “prompting.” I said to him, “What I think is that you don’t like your dad.” He stared at me so I suggested more: “You don’t really not believe in God. You don’t like your dad, and your dad is a pastor and therefore you reject not only your dad but everything he stands for.”
Odd thing is that the student agreed with me. Over his college career he gained back most of his faith.
I don’t do that sort of thing very often, but I did then. The whole idea — that our faith in God is connected to our faith in our father — is hardly a new idea, but it all came back to me in reading Paul Vitz’s essay in A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life’s Hardest Questions
Faith and fatherhood are connected. What do you think of Vitz’s study here? Has this thought ever occurred to you in discussions with atheists? What are the weaknesses of this approach?
His approach is to explore the psychology of atheism, and he observes in passing that this is not unlike the many more studies on the psychology of belief or the psychology of religion.
He begins with his own story, a story of becoming an atheist for reasons hardly connected to deep philosophical or intellectual rigor: he wanted to be seen as more than his background (the Midwest), he wanted to be accepted among intellectuals of psychology, and he wanted to have a more convenient — pleasure etc — lifestyle.
But there are better and deeper psychological reasons for atheism than his:Here he enters into dialogue with Freud, and Freud’s theory of illusion (the need for a father figure) and projection (projecting onto God what we think we need or want) and then the Oedipus complex … and Vitz knows that scholarship has reshaped these ideas of Freud’s. What came to light for me was that Freud didn’t hardly know a religious believer and that Freud’s father was a weak figure.
This leads Vitz to a proposal about one major factor in the psychology of atheism: many atheists, and he trots a good number, had/have defective fathers. He probes into Freud, Marx, Feuerback, O’Hair and others. By defective he’s talking about things like absence, mean-spiritedness, tragic death, abusiveness…
Vitz is a psychologist, and this sketch is clinical. He is in no way dismissing the serious issues at work in troubled fatherhood relations. Nor is he explaining away atheism as therefore something not serious for those with healthier fathers. His study leads him to compassion and sympathy and understanding.
When someone in the audience, an atheist, when Vitz gave this paper, said his study fit him to a “T”, he then asked what he should do … and Vitz said “Be the father to other people that you never had.”
Scott,
I find this explanation unconvincing. It seems to be similar to the idea that men become gay when they don’t have a strong father figure. Just as that explanation of homosexuality is offensive to gays; this explanation of atheism is offensive to atheists.
Ken,
The “psychology” of faith can also be offensive or fail to fit lots of people, but it doesn’t make it invalid. If we step back, though, and say that people’s belief or unbelief in God is not merely, sometimes not even primarily, an intellectual exercise separated from the rest of our lives, I don’t think that’s going beyond reality or even fairness. Parents really do have tremendous impact on how their kids think about God, and not just by what they say about God, but in how they parent and live.
Ken, I agree with T but I will take it one step further: Vitz’s proposal shouldn’t be offensive to atheists if it is accurate. He doesn’t speak here of “causation” but more of “correlation.” So, if there is a higher correlation between defective fathers and atheism, so be it. That is worth knowing. The analogy with homosexuality digresses from this conversation.
a young athiest i know has a wonderful father… for him it was more about dis-liking what he experienced in church and the anti-intellectualism that abounded.
Ken Pulliam #1,
I noticed from your website that you describe yourself as an agnostic atheist. If it is not too personal, how would you characterize your relationship with your father? I realize that if it was not a good or close relationship, this does NOT constitute proof of Vitz’s idea.
If people will forgive my saying so, I think the fundamentalist university you went to might have more to do with your rejection of the faith than your relationship with your father.
Personally, I had a good relationship with my father, but I have noticed that I tend to think of God as having a personality something like my Dad’s. Many people I know who do believe in God actually had a poor relationship with their father, but many of them will say that they struggled or still struggle with believing that God is not like their father. I actually don’t know many atheists so I can’t ask them these things. All I have is anecdotal evidence.
I wonder though, if someone is an agnostic, does this mean they doubt their father existed? If someone is polytheistic, did they live in a polyandrous society? If they are Zoroastrian, is it because their dad was bipolar? OK, I’ll stop.
Very thought provoking post. My primary question to the conclusion here would be “how?” I’m currently re-reading Rohr’s “wild man to wise man” and have the same question with some of Rohr’s insights.
Additionally, as I think over some of my friends who share this perspective, they would fit the clinical description too. But I’ve noticed in churches that people tend to apply this observation too quickly and soon every atheist is the product of bad fathering, so if we have a movement to develop better fathers, in a generation, we can witness the end of atheism.
Andrew,
You bring up a good point, and it is one that needs to be avoided: the problem of observation leading to generalization and then to universalization. Vitz very clearly does not make this mistake, so I’d prefer to discuss this idea in the context of it applying in some cases.
I think that Vitz’ ideas have merit and the primary strength that I see is an insight into how humans work: we believe most of what we believe based on emotional convictions that grew out of emotional experiences. As we grow and interact with others we learn how to dress up these convictions with reasoning, but be careful not to get the cart before the horse – we believe what we believe for emotional reasons. The explanations given are window dressing. Now, as others have stated above, by itself this is a totally inadequate explanation for what we believe and how we behave, but to pretend that it is not one of the streams in this flow is to risk being self-deceived.
IMHO.
To displace God(Abba) seems more an Oedipal impulse in men, than about defective fathers. This would explain alot about rejecting God and objectifying women. How did Freud get around that? He probably wasn’t a playboy.
Brilliant. Simply put, how we view our Dad’s is quite often how we view God. This is another great example of what’s at stake in the “Dad’s in Divorce Court” issue. If we allow the culture to continue to shun dad’s it is going to negatively impact peoples views of God too.
If this is too far removed for where you want this to go, Scot, just let me know, but I am really intrigued by this comment by Peter:
“the primary strength that I see is an insight into how humans work: we believe most of what we believe based on emotional convictions that grew out of emotional experiences. As we grow and interact with others we learn how to dress [and shore] up these convictions with reasoning, but be careful not to get the cart before the horse – we believe what we believe for emotional reasons.”
And maybe “emotional” is too small a word, but I think this is a big point if true. “Personal” or even “relational” may be better, but I’m thinking of how important and shaping other people or even intense experiences (like severe poverty, sickness, etc.) are to us as persons. Is Peter right? Are we often at the surface of things when discussing people’s intellectual reasons for faith? Are such conclusions more a matter of our relational and other formative experiences?
When God came to Moses, He identified Himself as “I am the God of your fathers.”
At the end of Malachi, God promises he would send Elijah, who would “turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”
When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household.”
And Paul said that we have not received “the spirit of bondage again to fear,” but we have received “the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father.’”
Yes, I think there is a very important connection between fathers and faith. Among my people, we call it the inheritance (inheritance is the essence of fatherhood).
Ken #1,
You’ve got a few posts on your website that give psychological reasons for Christian belief (see this one, for example: http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-religion-cognitive-emotional.html ). What would be your reply to a Christian who found that offensive?
Well, father issues can screw anybody up and of course can impact beliefs. But let’s not pretend that atheism in today’s society is explainable in such simplistic terms. Sure some people are atheist because they never had a good relationship with their father. Or perhaps because of some abusive or tragic event in their lives. But what about all those scientists that are atheist? Did they all come from broken homes, desperately seeking acceptance among the university intelligentsia to replace the lack thereof at home? Please. I know too many atheistic scientists – and their family background is by and large just as healthy as anyone else’s. I don’t think painting atheism with the broad brush of “brokenness” is going to get us anywhere – and perhaps more than anything, only serves to denigrate what most theists don’t understand.
I just recently read his book – which maybe was his paper – “Faith of the Fatherless”. It’s a well documented read. His point is not an absent father will make you an atheist. His point is that those who are rabidly, dogmatically and aggressively atheists often have (from observable data) absent, cruel or neglectful fathers. He doesn’t say it’s the only reason people don’t believe in God, he’s talking about a specific subset of people and the psychological factors that inform their “choices”. It’s an excellent read and there’s a lot to think about.
Tim, please read the post and the comments more carefully. No one is suggesting all atheists have defective fathers; Vitz is a professional psychologist at a significant level and he knows what correlation vs. causation are; he knows not to overgeneralize, which he doesn’t.
I know zip about psychology, but I do know that my own crisis of faith shortly after my father committed suicide. So, based solely on my personal experience, I think Vitz is on to something.
I’m unsure about Christianity and would probably consider me an agnostic nowadays. I have a great father. My husband’s father committed adultery 4 years ago and estranged the family, yet my husband still retains strong faith in Christianity. There is really no psychological component to my doubts, as they stem purely from intellectual doubt. I don’t see a consensus among theologians about the nature of Jesus, and I have doubts about whether his supernatural powers were a human construct by the writers of the Gospels. I think it can be damaging to make these kind of correlations that one’s father can promote atheism, because they downplay how legitimate the concerns of atheists are…we can’t simply dismiss them by insulting their upbringing. And I’m not an atheists myself nor will I ever be one, but I think it is unfair to mis-characterize them. I know that you’ve stated that the correlation is not meant to be a blanket statement, but I know that Christians will be quick to make it such.
Scot,
I know that Vitz doesn’t say “all” atheists had defective fathers. But seriously, when does anyone say “all” about any population of millions of people? He’s also not just referencing some correlation as a curiosity. He’s tying that in with a theoretical model that offers a “causal” explanation for why the purported correlation exists. Furthermore, his psychological model appears to invoke Freudian concepts such as the Oedipal complex, which are now seen as discredited among most professional psychologists.
In discussions of Vitz’s book online, reviewers have noted that the author relies on case studies of individual atheists, but never presents evidence for a statistically-derived correlation of atheists as a population. You know, selecting a broad, random, representative sample of atheists and then administering a survey concerning their experiences relating to their fathers and home life. That sort of thing. I can’t think of any one of my colleagues at the clinical psychology doctoral program I attended who would accept a conglomeration of selected case studies as sufficient evidence to infer some correlation across some population at large.
ps-I feel like I often take the voice of an atheist on this blog, and that is not my wish, as I am not one myself and do not have much respect for the likes of Dawkins et al, but I think stereotyping them is unfair and does little for the cause of evangelism. I’m extremely frustrated at my own doubts, and my altered perspective brings with it much more compassion and humility towards non-Christians than one could have if you were a devout Christian. The latter simply cannot see the issues like I see them.
like a child,
I’m right with you
I’m a theist as well but I don’t see the benefit in perpetuating falsehoods against atheists, the most persecuted population in America.
Tim: Thank you for pointing this out – “I can’t think of any one of my colleagues at the clinical psychology doctoral program I attended who would accept a conglomeration of selected case studies as sufficient evidence to infer some correlation across some population at large.” I think the problem with Dr Mcknight’s post was that it begun with an anecdotal story of his student not believing because of his disdain for his father, and then Dr. Mcknight related the observations of Vitz – giving Vitz’s views the benefit of the doubt.
Tim,
Well, here’s the big point. You’ve not read Vitz; he clearly says what you say about the Oedipal complex; furthermore, he’s moving beyond Freud in this piece. He isn’t talking “cause” so much as evidence from famous atheists and their fathers, which can be correlated with other atheists, … and enough of this to say this is worth talking about at the social-science level.
Here’s a fact, and one difficult to measure: we don’t make decisions purely on the basis of evidence; we make decisions for all sorts of reasons, and probing into the psychology of religion and atheism is worth the probe, even if the results are never certain. No one seems to contest that some explain religious faith on psychological grounds — but some would contest this for atheists. Odd.
like a child, I’d say this though: truth matters. If we learn the deeper connections and reasons for our decisions, even if some of them are emotive or psychological, we all gain.
Tim – apparently we have differing definitions of “persecuted”.
My 17 year old son has declared that he is an atheist. The interesting part about his beliefs is that he does not deny; interconnectedness of the world, the need for good works, the possibility of other realms, or any other religious belief. His unbelief is centered around the anthropomorphic depictions of the deity. He denies Jesus because of cynicism. I have to admit, I like his view that people get the wrong idea about god as soon as they start to refer to him as a him and relate to him as something they can visualize. He is relating to what I would call god as something other than a father figure. Something well beyond, ….well, well beyond me.
I have known and worked with many people over the years. There are large differences in people’s ability to and style of conceptualization. For many, the subject must be sensory in some way. For many the degree of abstraction can be quite high. I believe that my son’s atheism is a reflection of his ability to think in a very abstract manner. I personally do not think that you have to confess that Jesus is your Lord and Savior to “be saved”. I would say that he is actually confessing Jesus is his Lord and Savior in a more meaningful way than many who do it from a literal concrete perspective. It sounds weird, but I think my atheistic son is, perhaps, what Jesus wants people to be.
Having said all of that, I actually think that Jesus was what we all here say he was. I also think that my son is living a Christian life but would not recommend his approach to most people. He is a good person working for the kingdom of god. He just uses other words.
Scot,
You’re right in that I haven’t read Vitz. All I’m going off of is your post above. That’s where I pulled the Oedipus complex from, while I see in your post that Vitz acknowledged that such Freudian ideas have since been “reshaped.” Well, at least as pertains to the Oedipus complex, it hasn’t been so much reshaped as discarded completely. Projection has held up, however, in a weaker form.
In any event, inferring a correlation from isolated case studies is strongly discouraged in the psychological sciences. Case studies might prompt one to design and administer a survey to see if a pattern really exists, and if so how strongly. But to just extrapolate outward from a handful of isolated examples to the population at large is a big statistical error. No reputable social scientist I am familiar with attempts to do such a thing. So why is Vitz?
“So why is Vitz?”
Given that you haven’t read him, how would you know if he is doing this?
I do think that religious parents, who are either “bad” or perceived to be “bad” parents by the child can turn a child off of religion.
Also, I will say that the general conclusion of the author is in line. Most people I have come in contact with are not atheists because of an intellectual argument, but for some other reason. Usually hurt, pain, suffering. Later they then develop, or agree, with the intellectual argument to provide credence for their belief.
http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com
Bradm,
I am gathering that he is from Scot’s posts and comments, as well as other comments I’ve read online. If I’m wrong, then hopefully someone who has read this book will correct me.
I really don’t know since I haven’t read him either, but I see no way to infer that from Scot’s post or subsequent comments.
Wesley Walker,
I think you dismiss the intellectual arguments too lightly. They are real and can be profoundly troubling independent of any other “psychological” setting.
To turn around and say to someone (me, like a child, others) that intellectual doubts are a rationalization developed for a decision based on other grounds (hurt, pain, or suffering) is patronizing and self-defeating. If the best defense you can give is an attack on my emotional well-being I will pretty much disregard anything you then say.
The problem with this post/lecture/book … is that the connection can lead to dismissive over generalizations. I rather expect that the generalizations that Vitch gives with regard to specific atheist figures can be turned around and used to describe behavior patterns for a broader group independent of belief or disbelief in God.
RJS,
I echo your sentiments completely, across each and every point you just made
rjs and tim, me too.
But for a minute I want to take Wesley’s side for part of what he said. He said “I do think that religious parents, who are either “bad” or perceived to be “bad” parents by the child can turn a child off of religion.” That I agree with particularly if it is religion that you are talking about and not deism and theism. Religion may have many more nuances in the father/child relationship since the religions corrupt the word of god by interjecting authority in human constructs in the name of god. So in that sense I see the argument about religion to be quite different from deism or theism. My son is definitely turned off by Churchianity and religion in general and is making the break based on the perceived absurdity of the religion, not deism or theism.
Scott,
I took your post to indicate that Vitz sees atheism as some type of disorder and he postulates that this disorder is due to having a defective relationship with one’s father. It was his assumption that atheism is a disorder that I found offensive. I think his thesis is somewhat parallel to the view that homosexuality is a disorder that can sometimes be correlated to one’s view of one’s father. I doubt there is any real science supporting either of these theories. Granted, one’s upbringing and one’s relationship with one’s parents, siblings, and so on are crucial in how one comes to view the world but this insight is not new with Vitz.
DRT,
I agree with you in the sense that religion is typically past down from parent to child in the context of a community. Any dis-functionality, either between parent and child or between child and community can prevent the successful adoption of religion. This is as true of Christianity as it is of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. However, this is not the only reason for failure to adopt religion, or departure from religion after being an initial adherent. Often religion thrives best when the believer is most securely set within a community of like-minded believers. Any change in that dynamic that opens them up to substantive exposure to new ideas and alternative communities could render their beliefs more vulnerable to change – and even eventual rejection, perhaps for an alternative belief system.
…lousy grammar, past should be passed
rjs,
I agree with you and others that the ideas here, like gasoline, can be more easily used destructively rather than constructively. That said, I’ve posed the issue as a question in 11. Are we often dealing with the non-determinative surface when we discuss intellectual reasons for faith (or disbelief)?
In my experience, there’s often a remarkable difference b/n what people would affirm as doctrine, even strongly defend, and what they really count on or trust personally and subconsciously. And routinely what determines and anchors what is really believed is a set of formative experiences, the meaning of which we interpret and internalize. For example, my grandmother doesn’t handle money the way she does because she took a class on frugality and was intellectually convinced of its merits. She, as with many like her, went through the great depression and became a true believer in it. And I’m increasingly encountering darker and more damaging examples with people who have been abused in one way or another. The conclusions we make via experience are very strong, often stronger than the supporting or counter arguments that we buy into intellectually.
As important as it is to talk about the intellectual reasons and issues around faith/disbelief, are we routinely overestimating the role that reason really plays in our theology relative to experience (for theist and athiest alike and everything in between)? And, too, are we doing such at the public level (as theists and atheists) because our intellectual arguments are far more respectable in our western culture, in our age of reason, than our conclusions rooted in mere personal experience?
Tim,
I think it is good for people to examine their beliefs and have exposure to many new ideas and alternative communities of faith. To isolate someone from other beliefs is wrong, in my view.
Are you advocating sheltering children to their father’s religion?
Sorry, “mere” in the last line of 37 should be in quotes.
DRT,
No. I’m not advocating this at all. I am a big proponent of equipping children as best you are able with the tools to make their own informed decisions with respect to God, religion, etc. This is what I am going to do with my own daughter as she starts to get older. However, I think parents should be under no illusion that if they go about it this way, the chances that their children will independently select the parent’s favored religion will be reduced (as compared to the more typical indoctrination model one sees).
“The plural of anecdote is not data.”
So, I have a really good father. He taught me so much about being a kind, generous, forgiving, responsible person and everybody likes him. Seriously, he has no enemies. I’m glad he’s around for my kids to see, too.
He and my mom have been an atheists since way back, too. (I suppose the Church would call them “lapsed Catholics”.) But they’re not bitter – they sent my brother and I to a Catholic high school because they thought it was a better school than the local public one.
So, am I an atheist because I love and admire my father and he’s an atheist?
The noted Christian apologist C.S. Lewis coined a term for this kind of argument: Bulverism. As he put it, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong… Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is ‘wishful thinking.’ You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself… If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic…”
Ray,
The list showing how many stauch athiests had defective fathers does not disprove athiesm, nor is that argued here. What is suggested (at least by me) is that for many athiests and theists, the primary reasons for their perspectives are more tied to family experiences than the intellectual arguments. I think that’s reality and is a good reminder for folks who do apologetics.
Ha! pardon the poor spelling!
If you read Vitz’s book you’ll see that much of what posters are arguing with has nothing to do with what he is actually saying. He is simply looking at well known, aggressive atheists and their well-documented relationships or lack-there-of with their fathers. His point isn’t that everyone or even anyone with an absent father will become an atheist. He is simply pointing out what happened in these well known cases and suggesting that reason alone does not shape our conviction no matter how much we might argue that it does. In part the book would be a challenge to all of us to consider that our ‘free will choices’ might not have been as ‘free’ as we think.
In no way does Vitz suggest we can write of intelligent arguments about the existence of God based on an proponent’s family of origin.
I think there’s a lot of validity to this study. I don’t think that the existence of God is the question – it’s more the nature of God. The biggest issue I see, for myself and others, is trust. If our own fathers did not put our needs ahead of their own, then how can we learn to trust God to? If one feels like they can’t trust God, they it is logical for them to doubt the nature or even the existence of God. Faith is believing that God is who He says he is, even when it doesn’t seem logical or even feel that way.
RJS. I resonate when you say “If the best defense you can give is an attack on my emotional well-being I will pretty much disregard anything you then say.” So many “apologetic” arguments seek to insult the doubter – doubt is caused by lack of father figure is just one…others blame it on sin, not praying enough, depression, lack of the gift of faith, the list goes on and on.
I was searching for more of Vitz’ writing and am getting the sense he is pretty judgmental about atheists. Here’s one example, taken from http://christianpsych.org/wp_scp/category/paul-vitz/ :
” Countless other atheists and skeptics presumably suffer from the same motivational weakness. They are likely, however, to disguise their problem as due to the evidence of modern science or some other similar “reason:’ And, of course, many atheists and skeptics are extraordinarily superficial in their motives for unbe-lief. This understanding is well described by the Baron d’ Holbach, the French Enlightenment philosopher and perhaps the first public atheist. But though an atheist, he was very critical of many nonbelievers. He wrote: “We must allow that corruption of manners, debauchery, license, and even frivolity of mind may often lead to irreligion or infidelity…. These pretended free-thinkers have examined nothing for themselves; they rely on others whom they suppose to have weighed matters more carefully. How can men, given up to voluptuousness and debauchery, plunged in excess, ambitions, intriguing, frivolous, and dissipated–or depraved women of wit and fashion-how can such as these be capable of forming an opinion of a religion they have never thoroughly examined?” (7)”
Tim –
Sure. “Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal.”
The problem is that non-rational influences can be overstated, too. If you assume that they are the determinative influence, then what? Nobody can be certain of anything, since everybody only believes what they believe because of psychological factors instead of reasoning about reality.
Instead, I simply recognize that reasoning about reality is difficult for humans, yet possible. In the end, you still have to address arguments first, before worrying about psychology.
Instead, I assume reasoning about reality is difficult for humans, but
Ray,
I don’t think you are responding to any post I made. I think “T” posted that.
like a child,
I read through your link and am just disgusted at how Dr. Vitz presents atheists as a group. Also, his heavily psychodynamic framework is far outside the mainstream of modern psychological science. I would encourage people to be critical evaluators of what they are willing to accept as scientific or good psychology. Just because the guy has a Dr. in front of his name and teaches at a university doesn’t mean that his views are well supported. One needs to look at how robust the evidence he presents is, and if his peers in the field find his arguments compelling.
…wanted to include in my last post an extension of support for your comments like a child. Thanks for your points and insights
Point 1: With religion, people often ask “Do I want to be like you and yours?” more than “Do I believe the truth claims you are making?” (inspired by John Burke, No Perfect People Allowed)
Point 2: Who you trust can deeply affect what you choose to believe – I believe Scot has made this point repeatedly. Witness the recent piece about Mohler’s discussion with a respected figure which quickly led to a change of mind on a career-defining position.
Point 3: Dad is often either a trusted or a resented actor in one’s formation as a person.
I absolutely believe that many sons and daughters receive important messages about the reality and quality of Christianity based on the day-to-day behavior of their dad, and make important decisions vis-a-vis their Dad.
Sorry about the misattribution, Tim – getting used to a different web browser where it’s hard to scroll. (Hence the formatting issues, too.) My apologies!