Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism

by Paul C. Vitz

Starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion-that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security-Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading intellectual defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Professor Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism. Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to atheism is necessary.

Genres: Psychology, Atheism, Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Christian, Biography

200 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1991

About the author

Paul C. Vitz (born August 27, 1935) is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at New York University, whose work focuses on the relationship between psychology and Christianity. He currently teaches at the Institute of the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, VA. (WIKI)

Reviews

[أحمد دعدوش · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب عظيم، درس من خلاله المؤلف -وهو أستاذ في علم النفس- فرضية انتشار الإلحاد بين الفلاسفة الذين عانوا في طفولتهم من غياب الأب أو قسوته، فكان الإلحاد في سن البلوغ حيلة نفسية للتمرد على سلطة الأب، والتي تتبعها أيضا سلطة رجال الدين والحكومات، مع وجود عوامل أخرى كانتشار الأفكار العلموية والبيئة المشجعة على التمرد والثورات، ولم يغفل عامل الإرادة الحرة لدى الإنسان العاقل.
الكتاب ضروري جدا في هذه المرحلة ولا يمكن اختصاره. أنصح الجميع بقراءته، وهو بسيط ومفهوم من قبل الجميع ويشبع نهم الاكتشاف.

[عبدالله الوهيبي · Rating 2 out of 5]

كنت أفكر في أن تأثير الأب على الابن أعمق مما يُظن، وأسرح بخاطري في ملاحظة هذا الأمر، وتجميع الشواهد المساعدة. ثم تيسر لي الاطلاع على هذا الكتاب، للمختص النفسي الأمريكي بول فيتز، الصادر عن مركز دلائل.
فكرة الكتاب باختزال شديد أن لفقدان/قسوة الأب تأثير مباشر في اعتناق الابن للإلحاد وإنكار الإله.
ولإثبات هذا الإدعاء سرد المؤلف سير مشاهير الملاحدة (هوبز، فولتير، شوبنهاور، نيتشه، هيوم، فرويد، رسل، سارتر، كامو،…الخ) حتى ذكر بعض المعاصرين كأوهاير الملحدة الأمريكية ت1995 التي تقول في سيرتها أنها حاولت قتل والدها بسكين. وبالعموم فهؤلاء كانوا إما فاقدين لآبائهم (وهذا ما لايفهمه الطفل إلا باعتباره هجراناً) أو عانوا من قسوتهم وعنفهم. ثم سرد سير آخرين مؤمنين ودرس علاقتهم الجيدة والودودة بآبائهم، ثم ذكر بعض الاستثناءات لهذه النظرية كديدرو وماركس. ثم ختم الكتاب بحكاية قصته الشخصية مع الإلحاد، قبل أن يتحول للتدين.
يؤسس فيتز فكرة كتابه على أطروحة فرويدية تربط بين الإله والأب في البنية النفسية للإنسان، يقول فرويد مثلاً:"الفحص التحليلي النفسي يبين بوضوح أن الإله عند كل إنسان يكون على صورة والده، وأن علاقته الشخصية بالإله تتبع علاقته بوالده"، ثم يؤكد:"أن الشباب يفقد إيمانه في الوقت الذي تفقد فيه سلطة الوالد هيبتها، وهكذا يكون مركب الآباء هو الأصل في الحاجة إلى التدين".
من الواضح آثار المعتقد المسيحي في تكريس هذا التصور عن الرب، وأنا أقرأ كنت أخمن هذا السبب في هذه العلاقة الرمزية التي يتخذها التحليليون النفسيون (فرويد، لاكان)، ثم وجدت طه عبدالرحمن يشير لذلك أيضاً في كتابه"شرود مابعد الدهرانية".
وبالعموم لاتبدو فكرة الكتاب مقنعةً بالنسبة لي، ولا يظهر في حجج المؤلف التماسك والرصانة الكافية، إلا أن الذي لاشك فيه -في نظري- أن للأب تأثير كبير يفوق ما نظن ربما، كما لا يمكن إنكار وجود علاقة من نوعاً ما (ليست شرطية ولا حتمية ولا أكثرية) بين فقدان/قسوة الأب وتبني موقف مضاد للدين.
يمكن القول أن الأب يمثّل مرحلة الدعم والرعاية النفسية الأولية للإنسان، وارتباك علاقة الابن بأبيه أو تصدعها أو انعدامها (باليتم مثلاً) مؤثرة في تكوينه النفسي العميق، فالأب يمثل ملاذاً أساسياً لابنه، أو كهفاً روحياً للحماية ولجلب الاطمئنان، وتحوّل هذا الملاذ إلى مصدر للأذى والإهانة والإضرار يعرقل من فهم الابن الناشيء لمعاني العدالة والأمن، فعنف الأب (المنظم والمرضي أو السادي) أو كراهيته للابن بذرة بائسة قابلة للتحول في نفس الابن إلى مأزق وجودي تجاه العالم (هنا تحضر قصة كافكا مع والده كأنموذج شهير).

[Candleflame23 · Rating 5 out of 5]

.
.

بالبداية علينا أن نعرف أن الدكتور بول سي فينز كان
ملحد في فترة شبابه خلال دراسته في جامعة متشيغان
وبحسب ما ذكره الكاتب عن نفسه فإن الأسباب التي دفعته
للإلحاد والتشكيك كانت أسباباً "سطحية بالكامل وتفتقر لأساس
روحي وفكري جدي "ويقول " العوامل الأساسية الداخلية
في جعلي ملحداً - برغم من كوني سابقاً غير واعي تماماً لهذا
في ذلك الوقت - لم تكن فكرية ، إنما إجتماعية ونفسية "

‏
وفي كتابه " نفسية الإلحاد " فصل الدكتور فينز مايقصده
بالدور الذي تلعبه الأثار النفسية والمواقف الإجتماعية على
قرار المرء مما يترتب عليه فقده للإيمان بوجود خالق ورد
المنضومة الدينية كاملة ويتطرق به إلى نظرية جديدة
في الإلحاد عُرفت بإسم " فرضية الأب المعيب " .


الكتاب مُقسم إلى جزئين الأول وهو الأكبر حجماً :

حمل عنوان " الملحدون والمؤمنون وآباؤهم " فيه يأخذنا
الدكتور فينز برحلة نفسية تكشف من خلالها الكواليس الخفية
التي دفعت الشخصيات المشهورة للإلحاد مثل سارتر ، نيتشة ،
ديفيد هيوم ، وغيرهم هؤلاء الذين إما فقدوا أبائهم مبكراً أو
عانوا من تسلطهم كما في قصة هتلر وستالين وفي بعض
الحالات الخاصة كانت الممارسات السيئة لرجال الدين تقف
خلف إلحادهم أيضاً كما جاء في قصة ريتشارد دوكينز .


وفي الجانب الأخر أظهر فينز الدور الإيجابي الذي لعبه وجود
الأباء في حياة أبناءهم وذكر عدة أمثلة لقصص تمتعت
شخصياتها بعلاقة أبوية طيبة انعكست بالتالي بشكل إيجابي
على الأبناء فظهرت لديهم علامات قوى الإيمان والاستقرار
النفسي .


ولم يهمل الكاتب ذكر النساء في الكتاب فقد تحدث عن
شخصيات نسوية كثيرة مثل سايمون دو بوفوار ، وآين راند .
وعلى الرغم من أهمية هذا الجانب كمسبب للإلحاد إلا أن
الدكتور لم يكتفي به فقط كدافع وحيد بل أكد " وجود
نفسيات " أخرى تؤدي إلى الإلحاد أو ما يشابهه .

وهذا ما تناوله بشكل موسع أكثر في الجزء الثاني من الكتاب
الذي احتوى على تجربته الشخصية .


ماذا بعد القراءة ؟

لسقراط عبارة كانت هي المبدأ الذي اتبعه العالم " انتوني فلو
طيلة حياته وهي "اتبع الدليل حيث يقودك” واستمر يتبعها
حتى وصل إلى الإقرار بوجود خالق بعد عقود عدة قاد بنفسه
حروب فكرية ضد ذلك وتجد من المؤمنين من يتأثر بسهولة
وينقلب ملحداً لينضم إلى " النخبة " تمامًا كما حدث مع الدكتور فينز بمنتهى البساطة .


يقول تعالى "وَلَوْلَا أَن ثَبَّتْنَاكَ لَقَدْ كِدتَّ تَرْكَنُ إِلَيْهِمْ شَيْئًا
قَلِيلًا" فلا تغتر بإيمانك واسأل الله الثبات .

.
.
#تمت
#أبجدية_فرح 5/5 🌸📚
#نفسية_الإلحاد للكاتب الدكتور #بول_سي_فينز
صادر عن #مركز_دلائل للترجمة والنشر ~ 🌸
.

‏#candleflame23bookreviews
🌸 #غرد_بإقتباس
#حي_على_القراءة

[ألاء · Rating 2 out of 5]

مع قناعتي بالفكرة التي بني عليها الكتاب وهي أن
الإلحاد 'الحقيقي' هو -في أغلبه- نتيجة لاضطرابات
نفسية واجتماعية لا عن حجج عقلية ومنطقية كما يراد الإيهام بذلك ، لم استطع أن أقتنع بنظرية الكاتب
عن " الأب المعيب/ الأب الغائب" وعلاقتها بنكران
" الأب " الذي في السماء، على الرغم من إيراده لنبذه
مختصره عن أشهر الملحدين يثبت فيها أن جميعهم
عانوا من غياب الأب أو سوء معاملته في سن مبكرة.
ومع هذا فقد أفادتني هذه النبذات المختصرة.
فكرة الكتاب بالمجمل مثيرة للاهتمام وكانت تستحق
معالجة أفضل من هذه.كان هناك أفكار أخرى أيضا مثيرة
للاهتمام وتستحق معالجة منفصلة. على سبيل المثال
لماذا يلحد الرجال أكثر من النساء ؟ ما الذي يعكسه هذا
على كل من طبيعة الرجل والمرأة ؟
في النهاية وكما قال الكاتب الإلحاد -كما الإيمان - خيار
وليس نتيجة حتمية لأي معاناة أو إضطراب.

[إيمان عبد المنعم · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب مهم وأرجو أن يساعدني في بحث تخرجي في صناعة المحاور لألحق بهذه المراجعة بحثنا إن شاء الله

[Nikola Tasev · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author tries to imitate the scientific method - forming a hypothesis (bad relationship with the father increases the chance for atheism), looking at evidence (various examples throughout history) and making conclusions (the hypothesis is true).
However, the sample size is ridiculously small. The whole book rests on name-dropping and anecdotal evidence. No statistics, no surveys, no research. So for all I care, the book is a waste of paper and time.
Let me make my own hypothesis. Science is evidence based, and produces results - it is therefore trusted. Some people of faith (the author)try to imitate science, at least in style, to appear more trustworthy. Yet faith is authority based, and thus is often tries to attack the authority of prominent atheists, in stead of their claims and/or ideas. As a result we have the deathbed "conversions" of Darwin, creationists attacks on his original works (even though biology has greatly expanded since they were written), and in this book - claims that prominent atheists were motivated by family issues, not intellectual ones. Claims this book does not prove, or provide any meaningful evidence for, in spite of all the efforts.
However, I have only anecdotal evidence to support my claim and won't write a book about it. A pity.

[Matt Moore · Rating 1 out of 5]

Through my reading, I found this book to be complete garbage. To randomly select at will athiests in time who had a tough relationship with their fathers is not a scientific method to prove your thesis. Mr. Vitz claims that he was an athiest in his youth and became a christian late in life yet never discusses this in the book. There are too many contradictions in the book and I highly recommend reading something else.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vitz shows plainly that notable atheists consistently had screwed up relationships with their fathers.

[Tom Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

The negative reviews here seem to fault Dr. Vitz's methodology. But this is how psychology is done, for better or worse; through case studies and personal testimony. At the very least Dr. Vitz does succeed in using the same tools that skeptical, materialist psychologists (i.e., Freud) used to discredit religious beliefs to discredit the historically very novel phenomenon of atheism and anti-religious sentiment. Psychology isn't physics or mathematics. Sorry.

Dr. Vitz presents evidence for his hypothesis that the phenomenon of atheism is (or at the very least can be) caused by conflict with and anger towards one's father or father figure. This is the reverse of Freud's psychological explanation for theism and religion as caused by repressed father-hatred. Vitz' hypothesis is very compelling. He offers short biographies of a number of intellectual atheists and theists and simply notes that the former group are the ones with reasons to hate their fathers, while the latter do not.

He does say in his conclusion that any psychologically-rooted argument for or against the existence of God is, ultimately, an ad hominum argument, and therefore not compelling. It is remarkable to note how recent the intellectual-atheist phenomenon is, and how deeply rooted it is in anti-authoritarianism and opposition to tradition, patriarchy, and even family.

[Jennifer Hill · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm not impressed. I'm a Catholic theist, and I don't think we need to result to pseudo-Freudian baloney to make points about why people may be atheists. The author also needs to understand that handpicked case studies and his personal interpretation of these studies are not anything like empirical evidence for his theories. If there was a half-star system, I'd give it an extra half-star to say that I think he might be on to something regarding attachment, but there isn't, and the book doesn't rise to "It was ok."

[J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is great and balanced, toward the end of the book this author does give the disclaimer that one still needs to address the philosophical arguments in that debate between Theists and Atheists, but just as much one should certainly appreciate that despite these arguments one should be aware of the psychological context behind atheistic philosophical formulations. This book largely revolves around the notion of a Defective or Absent Father, and the Oedipus Complex as a justification for theistic belief being turned against itself to be something really meant for the atheistic unbelief and gives examples to prove it.

Growing up I was aware of Carl Jung's "God-Image" concept and I thought this was sufficient in explaining why some people have a rather vehement notion of God, but this author gives a well-argued case that more often than not, not only is the Image of the Biological Father during ones formative years give an example of the Image of the Transcendental Father but also that atheism and all its arguments are just rationalizations rather anything based on Objective Reality.

Such rationalizations are given either because of societal pressure to conform both in the personal and professional realm (and this can't be denied in our increasingly secularized neo-pagan society), lack of willpower to actually live up to the actual title and Way of Life of the True Believer, as well as ones own upsurging passions and rebelliousness in ones adolescent years, which are still the formative years. All of these things I have intuited but never had the evidence and scholarly research to back it up, also the Author himself contends through his own self-reflection that the Atheism of his Teens to his 30s could provide insight for others.

The Answer to fighting Atheism then is not merely rational argument to obliterate the "rationalizations", but Socratic Dialog designed to address and heal these irrational forces which lead one to adapt these rationalizations for atheism, of course the greatest way to fight atheism is to actually allow your life to serve as a vehicle for the Love of God The Father so that others may actually see that God The Father does not necessarily need to be equated with ones Biological Father.

[أحمد حلمي · Rating 4 out of 5]

نتجول مع عمل فريد في بابه، نادر في تخصصه، يلمس قلب مشكلة الإلحاد الحقيقية بعيدًا عن الشبهات السطحية التي يحاول الملحدون التخفي من ورائها، ألا وهو المشكلة النفسية لدى أغلب الملحدين ولا سيما مشكلة الأب، حيث سيتجول بنا المؤلف في أغلب جوانب هذه الظاهرة التي تكررت عند الكثير من أشهر الملحدين في العالم كما سنرى، وهو إذ يفعل ذلك يفعله عن تجربة شخصية مع الإلحاد بالفعل في شبابه، في جانب التأثير النفسي الإلحاد، ولا سيما مشكلة الأب (فقدان الأب - أب قاس - أب متسلط إلخ) مع ما أضافه في هذه الطبعة الثانية من الكتاب بخصوص مشكلة الأم كذلك، وبرغم
عدم موافقت مركز دلائل على كل ما يُسقطه المؤلف من أفكار على هذه الحالات (إذ يتعلق بعضها بنظرة أبوة الإله في النصرانية) إلا أنه يكشف أساسا لا ينتبه إليه أكثر من
يتعاملون مع الملحدين؛ وهو دافعهم النفسي الحقيقي للإلحاد أو التمرد على السلطة الدينية والحياتية ونحو ذلك.
ولا يتبنى المركز كامل طرح المؤلف؛ بل لنا عليه ملاحظات عديدة، وإنما يهدف المركز في ترجمته لهذه الدراسة إلى توفير محتوى معرفي يدرس الحالة الإلحادية من زوايا مختلفة، كما يدرك الفرق بين وصم الإلحاد بـ (المرض
النفسي) وهو ما لا تميل إليه، وبين تقديم ترجمة الدراسة مُثيرة تسلط الضوء على (تحليل) دوافع الإلحاد النفسية، سعيا من المركز إلى مزيد من الفهم للحالة الإلحادية .

الكتاب يحتوي على أفكار مثيرة تستحق النظر والمناقشة
والتقويم، خاصة في تركيزه على أن الدافع لاعتناق الإلحاد هو دافع نفسي لا صلة الله بقوة الأدلة أو موضوعية المنهج، وهذا طرح لا ينبغي أن يمر دون إخضاعه
للتفكير المتعمق، فهناك شواهد عملية تدعمه وتؤكده، وكان أكثر الملاحدة لديهم مشكلة شخصية مع الدين، فتتشكل مواقفهم بناء على نفور نفسي متراكم، وكراهية متنامية تحول بينهم وبين تحكيم المنهجية العلمية والمعايير الموضوعية في الأدلة بأنواعها؛ العقلي منها، والتجريبي، والحسي (الباطني) أو ما يُسمى صوت الفطرة الداخلي

[Thay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read on looking at the role of many of the great philosophers to see how their relationship with their fathers may have impacted their world view - and especially perspective on God.

[Mike Dolan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I've read in the last month.

[Robert Emanuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book on the understanding of how people who have no relationship with their father have a hard time recognizing God as a loving father much less if he exist.

[Lisa.Thorseth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely intriguing, and explains why using logic with atheists to defend Christianity is unhelpful. Many of them have suffered from deep father wounds (nurture) or autism (nature), and so find it difficult to conceive of God as Father and/or as Someone with Whom we can have a loving relationship.

The author is a distinguished Psychology professor and author. In addition to well-referenced sources backing-up his case, he offers short biographical entries of several dozen well-known philosophers, (mostly atheists, some not). Fascinating and compelling.

[Jason Mccool · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really interesting read from start to finish. Psychology has often been used to consistently slash at religion (and Christianity in particular), but Vitz demonstrates that there are two sides to that sword, and the return swing toward atheism is not to be dismissed by skeptics. I found this to be a fascinating "minority report" since psychology has often appeared (to me) as only so much psychobabble aimed ultimately at denying God. To see those (typically) atheistic tools turned on atheists was a good reminder that the tool is neutral; it's how we use the tool that matters.

Vitz starts out looking at the typical projection theory of of belief in God, but then quickly turns that around to propose a projection theory of unbelief in God. He then introduces the connections between poor or nonexistent relationships between children and their earthly fathers, and their relationship with the one we typically call our Heavenly Father. For those of us who didn't grow up with any real father drama during our critical developmental years, this connection is eye-opening. I'd never considered that someone might be repulsed by the idea of a heavenly Father, but it makes sense if their only experience of a father was traumatic to them. In chapter 2, he then lines up some short sketches of 24 atheists, followed by a control group of 21 theists in chapter 3. Each instance is of a relatively famous person who came to be outspoken for either atheism or theism, and a brief account of what we know of their relationship with their father. For the atheists, he divides the cases up into a) dead fathers, and b) abusive or weak fathers. The cross-section of atheist and theist cases come from about the 1600's on up to the end of the 20th century. Chapter 4 looks at 3 cases of substitute fathers in the development of religious beliefs, and finally, 1 case (John Stuart mill) of the passing on of atheism from father to son in a positive environment. Vitz takes an interesting look at differences in rejection of God based on gender, and how that plays out in modern-day feminism. He then moves on to look at other psychological causes of atheism such as the role of birth order in a person's desire to reject the "family religion", painful experiences with those claiming to represent God, and internal struggles.

While the previous chapters had looked at more outspoken atheists, chapter 5 deals with the much more common "superficial atheism", of which he had partaken in college and his early career. I found this chapter interesting, as he turned his analysis on himself and observed that his own 20 years of atheism was, despite his assumptions of intellectual motivation during that time, actually psychologically-driven. He mentions that most of his "reasons" at the time were not based on having done his homework on the matter, and that if he had, he would've come to the opposite conclusions. Vitz then describes a little of the findings in history of religion that point not to the gradual evolution of primitive polytheistic religions into monotheistic ones, culminating in atheism (like he had accepted early on), but rather to monotheism being the original belief. He then gets into looking at factors leading to superficial atheism, such as socialization, a desire for autonomy, and personal convenience. Regarding socialization, he recounts: "My professors at Stanford University, however much they might disagree among themselves on psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in two things: their intense career ambitions and their rejection of religion. Just as I had learned how to dress like a college student by putting on the right clothes, I learned to think like a proper psychologist by putting on the right—that is, atheistic—ideas and attitudes. I wanted as few impediments to my professional career as it was possible to arrange." The desire for autonomy is an obvious motivation for atheism, especially in a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" American culture, and one that I've heard from several atheists. Vitz notes that, "For me, as presumably for many, becoming an atheist was part of a personal infatuation with the rebellious romance of the autonomous self." Regarding personal convenience, Vitz draws from his own experience and notes that "in this list of superficial but nonetheless strong non-rational pressures to become an atheist, I must mention simple personal convenience. The fact is that, in the powerful secular and neo-pagan world of today, it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer." Some atheists may disagree with Vitz on personal convenience if they've grown up in a nominally Christian culture where their atheism made them an outsider, but it's important to note the distinction between nominal belief and "serious belief". The kind of commitment described in the Bible is no small thing. Paying lip service to Christ may be more convenient than being an outspoken atheist in the "Bible Belt" of the Southern US, but being a genuine Christian is far more inconvenient in any time or place.

Chapter 6 addresses what was a completely new connection for me: atheism and autism. No, Vitz isn't saying atheists are autistic or that those with autism are doomed to become atheists. But he does highlight research on autism and religiosity that notes similarities in the difficulties in forming relationships for autistic persons, and that of atheists to be more technically-oriented loners. He notes some interesting characteristics of autism as being significantly gender-weighted toward boys over girls, and tending toward more analytical, systematizing, concrete interpretation, as well as being less relational. This then becomes an obstacle - not impossible to overcome, but an obstacle nevertheless - towards personal relationship with God, and a tendency toward religious belief (if any) characterized more by impersonal "force" or "principle". He notes a survey that found "The more a group’s creed and praxis assented to a personal God, the fewer men as compared to women were found in that group." All in all, this was perhaps the most intriguing chapter of all, as it got into more of the low-level "nature" question, and really helped complete the proposed model, in my opinion, since the rest of the book had focused on the "nurture" side of the issue.

Was there anything I didn't like? I really only had 2 complaints, both fairly minor.
1. This came across as something in between an academic and a popular book which isn't a bad thing. But in his voluminous endnotes referencing various studies and books, he included some sources for quotes by Blaise Pascal as being from quotes pages at the Goodreads and Brainyquotes websites. That was rather disappointing. 99% of his references were very professional, and useful for digging deeper into this area of study, but this just came across as very lazy. I can only assume he was facing a publishing deadline and couldn't manage to confirm the actual primary source material (i.e. Pascal's Pensées) on these quotes toward the end of the book, but it reflects poorly on what was otherwise great attention to detail in his attributions. There are just too many misattributed quotes on the internet to not go back to the original source material, especially when the original sources are public domain and searchable.
2. While Vitz seeks to provide examples of real-life people whose development of beliefs about God can be better understood via his model, it can come across as cherry-picking data. We always want our theory to fit the data and not select for data that fits our theory. Vitz offers brief biographical sketches of a varied selection of historical figures, both atheist and theist, in the middle part of his book, to show how his theory could be applied to these people. Although it's a good cross-section, it still seems a bit anecdotal. He admits beforehand that details of childhood relational development are often lacking for even the more famous historical figures, but I think I would've preferred replacing some of the more famous atheists, who had little recorded childhood background to analyze, with less well-known atheists, if they had more detailed accounts. Sometimes you have to read between the lines when facing a dearth of information, but we should still prefer clearer cases over famous cases when seeking to validate a model. We don't want to extrapolate beyond what the data can support. It's like when graphing something. One data point can mean almost anything. Two points determine a line, but is the underlying data a straight line or a parabola? More data points allow us to see the developing trend better. Are we seeing an ever-increasing function or one that is actually leveling off to an asymptote? Likewise, what trends can we extract from Vitz's work? He does provide some contradictory cases, noting that others overriding causes may be at work in those cases, and that psychology is necessarily complex and rarely can be simplified to one cause. That's reasonable, and I think this book is an excellent start, but I'd like to maybe see a more comprehensive follow-up with a larger sampling.

But those are minor annoyances, and overall, I would definitely recommend the book.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

I guess the writing could be a little spicier, but the hypothesis is definitely intriguing and seems to have a fair amount of data to back it up. Vitz, an NYU psychology professor, contends that most of the major atheistic philosophers likely became atheists because they had fathers who were weak, abusive, hostile, distant, absent or in some other manner defective. He believes there's direct correlation between rejection of bad earthly fathers and rejection of the concept of a heavenly Father. Vitz wrote capsule biographies (several paragraphs each) of many leading atheist thinkers, looking specifically at their poor relationships with their fathers, and contrasted those with short biographies of a number of the atheists' contemporaries who were leading Christian and Jewish thinkers with good father-son relationships.

I'd like to see this idea fleshed out a little more and perhaps researched further. I'm sure research was beyond the scope of Vitz's book -- he'd need to get a grant or something -- but it would be neat to see if Average Joe atheists have the same dynamic going on by doing man-on-the-street-type interviews with people to see how their relationships are with their fathers and whether they believe in God.

One thing I happened to notice was that the atheists with bad father-son relationships also tended largely to be poor (probably because of the economic necessity of having male provider for a family in previous centuries), while the believers with good father-son relationships also seemed to have better economic circumstances. (There were a handful of exceptions.) It struck me that it is possible that physical/economic deprivation could also have prejudiced the eventual atheists against the idea of a heavenly Father who provides. That's a possible critique that some might raise against Vitz's theory.

[إسلام منصور · Rating 3 out of 5]

يختص الكتاب بتسليط الضوء على جانب معين لمشكلة الإلحاد ورواجها في الغرب؛ ألا وهو التأثير النفسي من موت الأب أو قسوة الأب أو طبيعة العلاقة بين الملحد وأبيه. ومن ثم إسقاط طبيعة تلك العلاقة على علاقته بالله.
ويستفيض الكتاب في ذكر الأمثلة حول ذلك ودعم رؤيته بالتمثيل الطويل وكذلك بذكر تجربته مع ذلك.

والكتاب يوجه النظر لمشكلة عميقة عند كثير من الملحدين والمشككين، والوعي بها هو سبيل لحل إشكالاته وتوجيه الخطاب الدعوي المناسب لهم، وهذا أفضل ما يفيد به الكِتابُ المسلمَ.
لكن بل تعميم بأن أغلب مشاكل الإلحاد هي مشاكل نفسية والسير في هذا الاتجاه، بل هو جانب كبير.
وأيضا يظهر تأثر الكاتب بالروح المسيحية المدافعة عن الكهنوت فجعله جائرا في كثير من المواضع.

[Heba Elhabiby · Rating 4 out of 5]

بحث علمي في علاقة الالحاد بالمشاكل الأسرية عامة والأب المعيب خاصة .. مفيد الى حد كبير

[Ahmad Lalti · Rating 1 out of 5]

A simplistic and psuedo-scientific treatment of a topic as complex as the psychology of belief.
The argumentation can be described by:
Cherry picking and confirmation bias.

[Ahmed قامش · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite many negative reviews here, I can say that the work done in this book is not bad at all and any opinion that discredits this outstanding research is really unfair. I wouldn't say that after reading this you will have a clear undoubtable reason why would someone be an atheist but the book will give you at least a different way of thinking about atheists , by considering the effect of
1. Historical period
2. Interpersonal trauma with attachment insecurity (e.g. the defective father) or in many cases, interpersonal incompetence (eg. authistic mental characteristics).
3 . Above- average intelligence
4. Ambition and resentment
5. Their own free choice

All what I can say about this work , it is a typical way of Empirical Research:
it starts first with Observation by defining the atheism phenomena and its causes. then the
Induction and here the writer started to Formulate his hypothesis and give an explanation of the phenomena. His focus has been on defective fathers' attachment insecurity with dismissive attitude, and to a lesser degree, deficient or limited interpersonal sensitivity as in autism(p. 16). The writer considered the literature and research in the field, which is a very essential point in the induction reasoning research (i.e. attachment theory [Bowlby], oedipal complex [Freud], compensation hypothesis,..etc). The next step in the research is Deduction and here comes the formulation of the experiment. The tools used in this book are the same tools that materialist psychologists used to interpret religious beliefs. From this perspective Vitz developed his proposal as an inverse to Freud’s projection theory of belief in God, which proposes “wish-fulfillment derived from childish needs for protection and security” as the major psychological factor leading to religious belief in God (p. 6).
And here, we need to keep in mind that the research here is just psychology!. It is not physics or chemistry where one is always obligated to do deductive reasoning to prove a theory. However, in this research here , the writer took the Inductive reasoning path, and for that you cannot blame him for not considering any kind of data analysis or statistics (In my opinion, this will enhance the research a lot but I think it was not the focus of the book at all ) . The method used here is just a historical survey of the biographies of prominent atheists and theists, particularly major figures in the development of modern atheism and their interlocutors on the side of faith. I agree that it is not enough from one side but you cannot deny the efforts done here in this point (or even call the whole work as garbage!!)
As a conclusion, psychologist Paul Vitz proposes a likely effect of the loss of the father on children: a distance from and doubt of God, which leads in many cases to profound atheism.
You many agree or disagree with him, but this is how the psychoanalysis is done :)

[غيد⚘️اء المنصور · Rating 2 out of 5]

اول مابدأت الكتاب كانت عندي آمال كبيرة اشوف أسباب كثيرة لنفسيات الملحدين بس أنه البحث كان مخصص لكم نظرية والباقي ماتعمق فيها بعد الأمثلة الكثيرة اللي يمكن كان يقدر يكتفي ببعضها لأن اغلبها تتشابه طفشت فكنت مقررة اسحب عالكتاب هو اللب خلص بس كملته عشان التحدي🤦‍♀️🙂☝المزعج انه يكرر واجد حوم تسبدي 😶🙄🤏 الخلاصة اول شيء ذكر النظرية الاوديبية حقت سيغموند فرويد وجد قرفت ايش دخل هذا تعلق أطفال عادي بأهلهم عند كل طفل يبي يصير التوب عند امه وابوه فطريا بدون اي تدخلات يحتاجو احتواء ويكونوا انانيين ممكن ايش دخله بالإلحاد الأفكار فيها منحرفة وما استغرب منهم مو جديد عليهم 😅 بعدين يمكن التعلق غير الآمن والأب المعيب لاحقا يأثرو بس اللي قبل بأعمار صغيرة ذكرها احس خير ماتوصل لدرجة الإلحاد من نظرية اوديب🤨 لأخذ مكان الأب وقتله تمثل بنظري حاجة ثانية مثل النظريتين اللي تكلم عنهم بعدها بس مو النظرية نفسها تسبب إلحاد وغيره تكلم عن بعض المصابين بالتوحد وقصر عقولهم لتصور الإله نتيجة لعمى عقلي عندهم و المجتمع والثقافة والجهل أخيرا لمعنى الحياة والدين أغلبها أسباب تؤدي بالألم في نهاية واتخاذ هذا القرار وأظن وأنا طفلة صغيرة كنت قد فكرت بهذي الأفكار ومو وانا صغيرة وحتى وانا مراهقة واي طفل ممكن يفكر فيها بس نلاقي احيانا جواب واحيانا مانلقى فنضطر اننا نتبنى جواب ويكون عدائي مو تبريري لصف الدين بسبب الألم وكثير من الملحدين يبررون للإلحاد بغرور وغطرسة من دون يهتمون لفهم الأديان وايش تعني أخذوا موقف وقفلوا على نفسهم في عقولهم والكاتب نفسه اعترف انه ملحد سابق واشوفه بالاخير يعزز كأنه حس بالاشتياق للوضع استغفر الله 😭😂 ولنقد الكتاب كان الدين الأساسي عنده للدراسة هي المسيحية بشكل عميق ثم اليهودية والأديان الباقية مامر فيها الا مرة وحده على سبيل التعداد وهنا مااشوفه أنصف في تفسير الإلحاد بالأديان الأخرى لأن الإله مو أب فقط وهنا نظرة الإله كأب تخدم نظرية الأب المعيب ولربما التعلق غير الأمن نوعا ما ولذلك يجري ربط بين الثالوث وحياة الإنسان نفس العائلة فيكون يقارن ويسقط العلاقات ويتخذ مواقف على هذا الأساس ولما بدأت بالبداية تذكرت كثيرين يتحدثون عن الثالوث وقصته بالتعليقات ��ي مواقع التواصل على مدى السنوات اللي فاتت لدرجة مابصدق ان المسيحين يعبدون الثالوث ذكر المسيح عيسى عليه السلام كثير وفائق العدد عكس الأب والروح القدس وكأنهم شخصيات جانبية وان الإله وحده هو عيسى وكثير رأيت نقد للأب لأنه ما انقذ عيسى عليه السلام من التضحية بنفسه واساس المشكلة انه فيه مشاكل هنا بين الابن والاب فكيف بينهم كذا ويبون يأمنون بالرب الثالوثي كامل هم يشوفوا نفسهم فالابن اللي ينقذهم اي هم ينقذون نفسهم ويشوفون الأب ظالم لهذي الأسباب هذي نهاية التحريفات سببت تفكك كبير بالإيمان المسيحي وليست بجديدة 🤚🙂قرقرت واجد

[Carol Kean · Rating 2 out of 5]

It makes sense: belief in a loving Father-God is easier when one is raised by a loving father here on earth. Those whose fathers were absent, inattentive, abusive, or inconsistent make it harder to believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, God of love, and all that.

However...

For all the examples of atheists who have in common an "anti" father (not a term Vitz uses), there is one thing most atheists share: education.

The more widely one reads, the more likely one is to recognize the fallacies, inconsistencies, and borrowed ideas all through the Old and New Testaments.

The more we learn, the harder it is to believe the gospels.

With all due respect to Professor Vitz, the arguments he builds are based on faulty syllogisms, as are all the arguments in Lee Strobel's assorted "Case for Christ" books.

"Do not read anything but the Bible!"

Yes, I was raised with that advice. No, I could not follow it.

I read stuff.

First, I read the Bible cover-to-cover at 15. Without having read anything outside the Bible at this time, I still saw inconsistency after inconsistency, horror after horror (those battles of Jericho, Samson setting fire to the tails of foxes, the wrath of God, the global flood, the destruction of entire cities, and more). This led me to read other stuff. Carl Sagan's "Dragons of Eden" echoed all the thoughts I'd had. Sagan was so sensible, so rational.

For half a century I have kept trying to believe the promises of a loving God, the immortality of the soul, the reunion of lost loved ones in heaven.

A friend mailed me a copy of FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS, and he recommended G.K. Chesterton, and I read "The Everlasting Man," but one need not look outside the Bible for indications that it is a book written by men, not the divinely inspired and ultimate Word of God.

Just read the Bible. All of it. See if YOU can make it hold together. I'm still trying.

This boat doesn't hold water....

[Mu-tien Chiou · Rating 5 out of 5]

Borrowing Sigmund Freud's logic (Civilization and Its Discontents/The Future of an Illusion) against him, Paul Vitz argues that atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father and replace him with oneself, rather than theism being the illusion caused by the childish terrifying experiences of helplessness and the ensuing desire for fatherly protection.

If we assume that the development of the human mind through natural history has provided those minds with a number of special properties (as Carl Jung and Jordan Peterson have also tended to argue), then the Oedipus explanation should lead us to look for traces of "bad fatherhood" in those staunch atheists' childhood experiences. That is to say, a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful, unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God.

Vitz does exactly that. Karl Marx didn't respect his father for he didn't follow his ancestry's rabbinal tracteries but converted to Christianity — which Karl deems a sign of weakness. Ludwig Feuerbach's father abandoned the family for another woman when Ludwig was 13.
Baron d'Holbach became an orphan also by 13); Bertrand Russell's father died when he was 4, and so is Friedrich Nietzsche's father to his son; Jean-Paul Sartre never saw his father alive, and Albert Camus must have not been able to to remember his father who passed away when he was 1.

And there are so many other tragic life experiences that can lead to resentments of the existence of a benevolent God that make atheism as, if not more, irrational, as Christian theism. What books like these do show is that none of us is free from deep psychological influences that can sway our dispositions to either believe or disbelieve.



Review adapted from https://arcdigital.media/the-psycholo...

[Bracey · Rating 5 out of 5]

The thesis that a defective or missing father figure is a common factor in the lives of historically famous atheists or agnostics made Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism a compelling read. Despite the examples that were used to support the thesis, which in my opinion were slightly under-represented to be statistically significant, the case is strong that defective or absent fathers becomes a potent and primary contributor to one becoming a staunch atheist.

I loved the way the author used Freud’s criticism framework against Freud and his ideas. Specifically, that people seek religion merely to satisfy a childhood need. Psychological trauma is real and speaking as someone who lived under an abusive father who never abused alcohol and drugs, the results such abuse in my life was deeply impacting. If it’s not an encounter at 16 years old with the Son of God and men who modelled the life of a caring Heavenly Father, the notion of a loving God in the Judeo/Christian tradition as Father to me was unbelievable or at least potentially impossible. Nevertheless, I still think it was a miracle that I didn’t end up going down the road of downright hatred for God.

Faith if the Fatherless is an important book. It should be read by pastors, counselors and lay leaders. It helps to explain why how some famous atheists adopted the faith of atheism. It also says a lot about why so many fatherless men are in prison.

[Adam Chandler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vitz's hypothesis is that relationship with one's father can be a strong psychological factor towards acceptance of theism. This is somewhat in response to Freud's claim that religion in general (although Freud only somewhat had knowledge of Christianity and not any world religions) comes from a psychologically inherited guilt of patricide...which has no basis in reality or case support by Freud who simply speculates about historical personages. Vitz basically inverts Freud's claims by saying that rejection of God (particularly in Judeo-Christianity since the faith views God as Father) can be correlated to a poor relationship with one's father. He presents dozens of prominent atheists and theists with the former having poor relationships (abandoned, non-existent, abusive) and the latter having generally good relationships with their fathers. He also explores some apparent exceptions to the findings.

As a general warning, this book is not meant to be a thorough scientific study (hence the low ratings of many other reviews of this book) but a taste of a study as Vitz presents evidence supporting his hypothesis. While we cannot conclude from this book that we can definitely say atheism and fatherlessness is strongly correlated, we can say there is good evidence that there is at least some correlation. Much further, scientific study is needed.

[Zahra'a Bin Shaibah · Rating 4 out of 5]

على الرغم من ان عنوان الكتاب "ايمان فاقد الأب"، فقد وجدت ان المترجم اصاب في وضع عنوان "نفسية الإلحاد"، و بهذا لم يحد العنوان من المحتوى بل أشار لوجود أبعاد نفسية أخرى للفكرة، لا ترتكز فقط على فقدان الأب او غياب صورة الأب في الطفولة، بل تمتد الى اختيارات يقوم بها البالغ، لتحقيق أغراض نفسية.
.
فرّق الكتاب بين إلحاد كل من الرجل و المرأة، السطحي و الحاد، على الرغم من سيادة نظرية غياب الأب و أمثلتها، فقد تم ذكر أسباب أخرى، مع دعمها بشخصيات من أرض الواقع من خلال مقتطفات من السير الذاتية. منها:
النرجسية، الغطرسة الفكرية، النسوية، التحرر المنفلت، الرغبة بالحصول على القبول و الانتماء، المادية و الايمان الأعمى بالعلم، الفكر التجريدي، تعارض الدين مع نمط الحياة الحالي.
.
بعضها ارتبط مع خلل في التفكير:
- خلل ارتباط الإلحاد بالتحضر والاستقلال cognitive distortion
- صدمة من رجال الدين - الشخصية الدينية تناقض المبادئ الدينية- تؤدي الى نفور من الدين نفسه و هو نوع من الcognitive dissonance او التنافر الفكري.
- التفكير المنهجي و التجريدي الخالي من رؤية المشاعر، و العمى العقلي.

الكتاب اشبه بشبكة التقطت أسباب تبني فكرة الإلحاد و من الأشخاص الأكثر حساسية لها.
.
.
ختاماً لن يصل إلى الله من يعيش في برج النرجسية العاجي !

[Nathan Ellzey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding research! I looked at some of the negative reviews. As is often the case, these critics had already decided Vitz was wrong before giving him a fair read. Nearly every criticism I saw was directly addressed in the book. Vitz's treatment is very even handed. He's not overly ambitious about this "defective father" hypothesis, though is does believe and support it quite well. Excellent read! (Note: As I heard Vitz say in a talk, analyzing why someone comes to believe something does not invalidate the belief, whether it's work like Freud's or his own. That would be the genetic fallacy. Atheism stands or falls on the arguments for and against it. This material is most useful AFTER atheism has been disproven on other grounds.)

[Tedward · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid if not inconsequential look at the psychology of atheists and deists. tl;dr is that prominent atheists have really messed up relationships with their fathers, and because of this they reject the notion of God the Father. Comparatively prominent Christian apologists have good relationships with their fathers. Vitz touched slightly on the difference between male atheism and female atheism, but because the great atheists of the last three centuries are almost entirely men their wasn't a ton of detail about female atheism.