Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Not to be confused in its entirety with professor Paul C. Vitz's paper:The Psychology of Atheism but I found his paper quite interesting on the psychological aspect of atheism and the development of atheistic beliefs. Of course we in the psychology community believe there are a wide spectrum of beliefs concerning religion and metaphysics. Yes we indeed see the development of religious and irreligious beliefs as a development through personal experience. Nobody believes or disbelieves just because. There are developmental stages a person goes through before they solidify a particular life altering belief. I call it life altering, because for the atheist, they are not bound by any customary religious obligations nor observe any religious dietary customs.
However, what I do see in a lot of atheists both in the background of philosophical writers and anecdotally more often than not, many (not all) come from religious backgrounds where there are two spectrums: either extremely religious and repressive or irreligious (religious in custom but not practicing). During my time in research researching dietary customs in religious households, I have seen that certain customs that are straight forward yet strict also tends to not just be allocated to merely what meals you're allowed to eat and not eat, but largely branches out into every aspect of one's life. These restrictions tend to also focus on behavior, what one can and cannot do even as something as benign as what type of clothing you ought to where can be scrutinized.
For the irreligious growing up in a household where religion was not the focal point in the development of one's childhood would allow an easier transition into skepticism and the eventuality of developing hard atheist beliefs especially if one is a lover of the "hard sciences." Professor Vitz in his writing also highlights this when referring to specific socialization:
"Another major reason for my wanting to become an atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two things-their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4)."
Atheism at least philosophically, is synonymous with freedom of expression, no constraints, autonomous thinking etcetera. One is devoid of a nagging deity or deities' rules and doctrinal regulations. One does not abide by any customary laws as they are seen as a matter of inconvenience as per Dr. Vitz in the following:
"Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time."
But what is remarkable for me as an observer is that the issue I have with atheists is the same issues I have with theists concerning their belief. One side says "show me proof!" the other side says "the proof is here in this 2,000 year-old book The Future of an Illusion as his position seems to the most solid:
[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)
Which Freud develops in idea that the composition of religious beliefs are:
illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest
and most urgent wishes of mankind . . . As we
already know, the terrifying impression of
helplessness in childhood aroused the need for
protection-for protection through love-which
was provided by the father . . . Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life. (p. 30)
Quite interesting.....So I ask my fellow religionists, what say you in regards to this?
However, what I do see in a lot of atheists both in the background of philosophical writers and anecdotally more often than not, many (not all) come from religious backgrounds where there are two spectrums: either extremely religious and repressive or irreligious (religious in custom but not practicing). During my time in research researching dietary customs in religious households, I have seen that certain customs that are straight forward yet strict also tends to not just be allocated to merely what meals you're allowed to eat and not eat, but largely branches out into every aspect of one's life. These restrictions tend to also focus on behavior, what one can and cannot do even as something as benign as what type of clothing you ought to where can be scrutinized.
For the irreligious growing up in a household where religion was not the focal point in the development of one's childhood would allow an easier transition into skepticism and the eventuality of developing hard atheist beliefs especially if one is a lover of the "hard sciences." Professor Vitz in his writing also highlights this when referring to specific socialization:
"Another major reason for my wanting to become an atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two things-their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4)."
Atheism at least philosophically, is synonymous with freedom of expression, no constraints, autonomous thinking etcetera. One is devoid of a nagging deity or deities' rules and doctrinal regulations. One does not abide by any customary laws as they are seen as a matter of inconvenience as per Dr. Vitz in the following:
"Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time."
But what is remarkable for me as an observer is that the issue I have with atheists is the same issues I have with theists concerning their belief. One side says "show me proof!" the other side says "the proof is here in this 2,000 year-old book The Future of an Illusion as his position seems to the most solid:
[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)
Which Freud develops in idea that the composition of religious beliefs are:
illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest
and most urgent wishes of mankind . . . As we
already know, the terrifying impression of
helplessness in childhood aroused the need for
protection-for protection through love-which
was provided by the father . . . Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life. (p. 30)
Quite interesting.....So I ask my fellow religionists, what say you in regards to this?
Last edited: