The Psychology of Atheism

[Augustus]

[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)

Despite many of the less self-aware atheists telling themselves otherwise, adopting an atheistic worldview is not the process of freeing oneself from illusions, but simply the replacement of one type of illusion for another (often simply a minor twist on an existing religious illusion).

Most atheists here still believe in Divine Providence, they just call it "Progress". They still believe in religious concepts like Humanity, and (god-given) rights bestowed uniquely on our species.

The psychology of atheism and the psychology of theism are not really that different as neither can really be abstracted from the psychological need for illusion exists in all of us. Whether an illusion is theistic or atheistic generally makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Quite interesting... what say you in regards to this?

This is all just so trite, unfounded and presumptuous. How many times are theists going to try and pigeonhole "atheism" as a "belief" or set of beliefs, or try to paint it as a "religion" before they come to the realization that, no matter how much an atheist appears to be dogmatic in any way, no matter how many other irrational beliefs some atheist(s) may hold, no matter how irrational any atheist might be at times... NONE of that gets the theist any closer to having sufficient evidence or being able to sufficiently demonstrate their god. None of it. In other words... it doesn't matter. Stop it already. It isn't helping anything. You still don't have evidence that is worth a damn. You are still believing something without good reason and just because someone else may or may not believe something else without good reason does not, in any way, make you "right." Not even close. Nowhere near. And any irrational belief you can point out an atheist as holding is completely anecdotal - specific to only an arbitrary subset of atheists. However, all theists believe in a god. And so they all share an irrational belief, guaranteed.

And here's the huge gulf between a theist and someone like myself... I fully admit that I might be wrong about anything in particular - any belief I hold could be incorrect. I mostly hold what I admit are hypotheses, which await further evidence in order to be confirmed or rejected. I go where the evidence leads, and if evidence shows that something I've accepted (even for years) was wrong... so be it. I move on in the direction of that new evidence. This is the only honest tack one can take, and theism is definitely not this.

 

[ChristineM]

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?

Seems someone is trying to overcomplicate a simple issue, maybe its good for the old royalty checks

But in reality its really much more simple than a "superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheis" (who wrote this rubbish) or wanting to join a clique of psychologists.

Say for example i play football, i would be a football player
Or if i collected stamps i would be a stamp collector
Or f i believed in a god or gods i would be a theist.

As it happens i dont play football, so im not a football player
I dont collect stamps so im not a stamp collector
And i dont believe in gods therefore i am not a theist.

Why dont i believe on gods? Total lack of evidence in their favour while indicators show that gods described in holy books are a total crock.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Despite many of the less self-aware atheists telling themselves otherwise, adopting an atheistic worldview is not the process of freeing oneself from illusions, but simply the replacement of one type of illusion for another (often simply a minor twist on an existing religious illusion).

Most atheists here still believe in Divine Providence, they just call it "Progress". They still believe in religious concepts like Humanity, and (god-given) rights bestowed uniquely on our species.

The psychology of atheism and the psychology of theism are not really that different as neither can really be abstracted from the psychological need for illusion exists in all of us. Whether an illusion is theistic or atheistic generally makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Interesting position....

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This is all just so trite, unfounded and presumptuous. How many times are theists going to try and pigeonhole "atheism" as a "belief" or set of beliefs, or try to paint it as a "religion" before they come to the realization that, no matter how much an atheist appears to be dogmatic in any way, no matter how many other irrational beliefs some atheist(s) may hold, no matter how irrational any atheist might be at times... NONE of that gets the theist any closer to having sufficient evidence or being able to sufficiently demonstrate their god. None of it. In other words... it doesn't matter. Stop it already. It isn't helping anything. You still don't have evidence that is worth a damn. You are still believing something without good reason and just because someone else may or may not believe something else without good reason does not, in any way, make you "right." Not even close. Nowhere near. And any irrational belief you can point out an atheist as holding is completely anecdotal - specific to only an arbitrary subset of atheists. However, all theists believe in a god. And so they all share an irrational belief, guaranteed.

And here's the huge gulf between a theist and someone like myself... I fully admit that I might be wrong about anything in particular - any belief I hold could be incorrect. I mostly hold what I admit are hypotheses, which await further evidence in order to be confirmed or rejected. I go where the evidence leads, and if evidence shows that something I've accepted (even for years) was wrong... so be it. I move on in the direction of that new evidence. This is the only honest tack one can take, and theism is definitely not this.

An atheist actually wrote the article I was summarizing

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Seems someone is trying to overcomplicate a simple issue, maybe its good for the old royalty checks

But in reality its really much more simple than a "superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheis" (who wrote this rubbish) or wanting to join a clique of psychologists.

Say for example i play football, i would be a football player
Or if i collected stamps i would be a stamp collector
Or f i believed in a god or gods i would be a theist.

As it happens i dont play football, so im not a football player
I dont collect stamps so im not a stamp collector
And i dont believe in gods therefore i am not a theist.

Why dont i believe on gods? Total lack of evidence in their favour while indicators show that gods described in holy books are a total crock.

Nothing is really simple. Beliefs are not that simple. To you it may be because you believe the route you took did not involve a complicated process but it did.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Despite many of the less self-aware atheists telling themselves otherwise, adopting an atheistic worldview is not the process of freeing oneself from illusions, but simply the replacement of one type of illusion for another (often simply a minor twist on an existing religious illusion).

Most atheists here still believe in Divine Providence, they just call it "Progress". They still believe in religious concepts like Humanity, and (god-given) rights bestowed uniquely on our species.

The psychology of atheism and the psychology of theism are not really that different as neither can really be abstracted from the psychological need for illusion exists in all of us. Whether an illusion is theistic or atheistic generally makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.

This is bunk. Most atheists I know are actively trying to weed out illusion from disillusionment - especially so in the arena of theological/spiritual "belief", obviously. Seeking after whatever constitutes the "most true", or the closest we can get with our always imperfect knowledge. Are some atheists irrational about some things? Do some atheists hold tightly to beliefs that are unfounded? Sure. But I assure you it isn't all - and the range of topics within which some atheists might be too staunchly advocating is wide and varied - therefore there can be no claim to "dogma" within the "realm of atheists". But in the case of theism it most certainly is all theists who hold unfounded beliefs. It's the default state of a theist to be holding such beliefs - beliefs whose veracity cannot, in any way, be sufficiently demonstrated to the world at large.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

An atheist actually wrote the article I was summarizing

And?

See... I already acknowledged the idea that atheists are capable of holding irrational beliefs, or stating things as "fact" when they have no valid basis for doing so - just like anyone else. And this is where you are forced to understand that there is no dogma in atheism. I don't have to agree with a single thing ANY other atheist says or does, except when they say "I don't believe in god." That is the only statement to which any atheist is bound, by definition, to agree with. Everything else is a free-for-all. Everything.

 

[viole]

Not really....

Oh yeah, it is.

Someone had to teach you the fable of Mother Goose and you had to categorize such fable in association with a metaphysical deity.

You are begging the question that metaphysical deities are not fable. Sonce they enjoy he same evidence, it is not clear where this asymmetry comes from if not culture. If you you grew up in a culture that inverted them, you would have had experiences of Mother Goose.

You had to come up with a logical conclusion through a series of thought processes which concludes that such and such belief is absurd. so far, you're proving Dr. Vitz and myself right.

I tried but you have a point here. I find it very difficult to convince myself that there are logical contradictions in the concept of Mother Goose. Or Apollo. Or Bob.

Again, you did not come up with this belief all of a sudden. You had to go through as process like anyone else. The problem with atheists is they claim atheism is an easily defined belief that can be easily accessible as if there is proof of atheism. No. You went through the same or similar process as me.

Yes, you take it from your culture, in general. Your belief is an accident of birth.

Which is obvious, how could I otherweise guess so reliably the religion of X when I know only where he comes froma and what his parents believe?

Am i a psychic?

Ciao

- fiole

 

[ratiocinator]

Most atheists here still believe in Divine Providence, they just call it "Progress". They still believe in religious concepts like Humanity, and (god-given) rights bestowed uniquely on our species.

This is nonsense. I don't believe in any sort of "Divine Providence" - sometimes we make progress (however you want to define it) sometimes not. The only rights we have are those we collectively decide on.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In addressing the topic of the psychology of atheism I think religionists have a similar problem of stubbornness in that we leave out what is in the best interests of the whole and only follow those things that are limited to our way of thinking. So a solution to a problem may often be refused simply because it is not from our religion or our beliefs.

When people are entrenched in such a mindset whether atheistic or religious in can be very unproductive for our world. Being stubborn leaves our minds closed to improving and advancing our civilization because we insist on clinging to outworn ideas that have had their day and are obsolete and have become a cause of conflict.

Change seems to always have to be forced upon us through immense suffering.

If we can only open our minds to new ways, new ideas and new concepts we may be able to finally create lasting peace on earth.

I think that once this mindset that our race, religion or nation is the only way gives way to acceptance of all humanity as equals then we will find doors open to us that have been closed for centuries.

 

[Quintessence]

Most atheists here still believe in Divine Providence, they just call it "Progress". They still believe in religious concepts like Humanity, and (god-given) rights bestowed uniquely on our species.

Yup, that definitely would have described me. Part of the reason I didn't bother looking at religion was because I bought into the story about it being "primitive" and "outdated" ways of thinking that had no place in the modern world. I kept wondering why there weren't any modern religions that actually made sense for the present day and was unable to process that these things did exist because I had that "myth of progress" narrative going on in my head. If someone would have told me I'd become interested in Paganism when I was a teenager, I would have laughed in their face. Paganism? Seriously? That stuff was even more stupid than the stuff in the Bible.

It was really interesting when I later started learning about the academic biases that existed in several fields studying human culture. That there really was a time when even academics told themselves that human history was a story of progress from the most primitive animism to polytheism to monotheism... and the atheists then told themselves they were the next most superior line in the chain. Some still do. And I was totally in that head space as a teenager. I think that started fracturing as I studied more science, interestingly enough. It probably helped that I was never one to listen to what adults told me was the case.

 

[Curious George]

An atheist actually wrote the article I was summarizing

Not according to the article.

 

[ChristineM]

Nothing is really simple. Beliefs are not that simple. To you it may be because you believe the route you took did not involve a complicated process but it did.

Atheism is not a belief. In fact it is precisely the opposite.

The route i took was extremely easy, i read a book, the bible. Read it as written, not as cherry picked and interpreted. And despite what you "think" i believe, reading a book is really quite easy

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing is really simple. Beliefs are not that simple. To you it may be because you believe the route you took did not involve a complicated process but it did.

You're not paying attention to her.
I was born not knowing of gods, & certainly not believing in them.
When I was first told of one, God in particular, I thought the idea was absurd.
To believe would be insane.
And as time passed, I continued seeing such belief in such things as wrong.
Not only were the claims unevidenced, but they were absolutely bonkers.
So it really is dirt simple for many of us.
There's no reason to believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing is really simple. Beliefs are not that simple. To you it may be because you believe the route you took did not involve a complicated process but it did.

You're not paying attention to her.
I was born not knowing of gods, & certainly not believing in them / it.
When I was first told of one, God in particular, I thought the idea was absurd.
And as time passed, I continued seeing such belief in such things as wrong.
Not only were the claims unevidenced, but they were absolutely bonkers.
So it really is dirt simple for many of us.
There's no reason to believe.

 

[Augustus]

This is bunk. Most atheists I know are actively trying to weed out illusion from disillusionment - especially so in the arena of theological/spiritual "belief", obviously. Seeking after whatever constitutes the "most true", or the closest we can get with our always imperfect knowledge.

Far from being bunk, it is the singular most important component of human thought.

Human civilisation is founded on illusions/myths/fictions/narratives or whatever you want to call them. Some atheists seem to think their worldview is founded on truth, which is as fantastical as any religious belief. A world free of illusions would be a world free of meaning.

We are an accident of history who somehow became sentient and have little purpose other than replicating genetic code, yet, as a species, we need to construct purpose and meaning for our existence.

For example, why is it worthwhile or 'good' to try to identify what is 'most true'? Perhaps if I'm building an aeroplane, but not so much if I'm constructing a source of meaning in a purposeless and uncaring world.

The story that you tell yourself that explains the 'why?' in this case is a myth that explains why you hold certain values and why you reject others.

Worldviews don't appear out of a vacuum either, they tend to be amalgamations and adaptations of that which exists in people's environments. For example, it's easy to trace the liberal Idea of Progress through the Christian Providence of people like Locke to Deistic Providence of people like Jefferson to atheistic Progress of people like Condorcet (who, unlike most modern atheists, saw no problem in acknowledging the history of this idea).

3 different, yet functionally identical mythoi to underpin the same worldview: adaptations of that which already exists.

It's very clear that modern Secular Humanism owes a massive intellectual debt to Christianity, so assuming such an ideology doesn't rid one of illusion, it simply modifies an existing mythos to justify maintaining certain beliefs that no longer have an intellectual foundation.

The intellectual forebears of modern Secular Humanists were quite content to strip the supernatural out and stop there, whereas others like Marx and Nietzsche, saw it as having broader implications that this destroyed the foundations of the entire belief system.

Whatever is "most true" about the nature of human existence, it certainly isn't the comforting narrative of Secular Humanism.

But I assure you it isn't all - and the range of topics within which some atheists might be too staunchly advocating is wide and varied - therefore there can be no claim to "dogma" within the "realm of atheists".

That doesn't mean there isn't 'dogma' within many common, 'rational', atheistic ideologies though.

 

[Augustus]

This is nonsense. I don't believe in any sort of "Divine Providence" - sometimes we make progress (however you want to define it) sometimes not.

Neither do I, but that is why I used the word most rather than all.

The only rights we have are those we collectively decide on.

And are justified via a particular universalist secular mythology that developed out of a universalist religious mythology.

 

[ratiocinator]

And are justified via a particular universalist secular mythology that developed out of a universalist religious mythology.

No. You seem to have the bizarre idea that if something isn't objective but rather a personal or collective set of values, it's automatically a myth or an illusion. That's not what the words mean.

illusion
myth

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Far from being bunk, it is the singular most important component of human thought.

So you've struck on the "singular most important component of human thought", have you. Way to go champ. Excuse me while I turn around and facepalm my flesh off.

A world free of illusions would be a world free of meaning.

Specious sophistry.

We are an accident of history who somehow became sentient and have little purpose other than replicating genetic code, yet, as a species, we need to construct purpose and meaning for our existence.

We're pretty much agreed on this point, honestly. What does this have to do with whether or not we seek to only accept what we can verify through evidence and sound reasoning though?

For example, why is it worthwhile or 'good' to try to identify what is 'most true'? Perhaps if I'm building an aeroplane, but not so much if I'm constructing a source of meaning in a purposeless and uncaring world.

Completely untrue. Of course "truth" and demonstrating why you think something to be true is important. Otherwise, how are you going to convince anyone that your construction of meaning or purpose is worthwhile? How? And note that I am never talking about "truth" as if it is "absolute certainty", i am talking about attempting to reach for that, even if it is unattainable. To try out as many paths as are necessary, but purposefully walk only in the directions that make sense to walk in.

The story that you tell yourself that explains the 'why?' in this case is a myth that explains why you hold certain values and why you reject others.

This is you claiming that forms of evidence are simply myth. I don't agree, and you can't demonstrate the truth of this claim.

It's very clear that modern Secular Humanism owes a massive intellectual debt to Christianity,

I suppose you're somewhat right here. They made a grand and long-standing demonstration of how things shouldn't be approached, which taught a great many people to turn and face another way. However...

so assuming such an ideology doesn't rid one of illusion, it simply modifies an existing mythos to justify maintaining certain beliefs that no longer have an intellectual foundation.

What it doesn't make Christianity is any more "true" than it ever has been. It may very well have been a "building block" of sorts... so you can say it "has value" or something ("a story you tell yourself that explains the 'why'" maybe?) but you can't claim it is any more true than it ever has been. And so, if we're trying to strive for truth at all, and Christianity needs discarded on that path, then it always needed to be discarded - it just took us time to get there.

Whatever is "most true" about the nature of human existence, it certainly isn't the comforting narrative of Secular Humanism.

I never said it was. Examination of the evidence and accepting the best foot put forward on it is all I stand by, in the end. "secular Humanism" may or may not have its day, and may or may not also need to be discarded. Only time and accumulation and assimilation of sound information and verifiable evidence will tell.

That doesn't mean there isn't 'dogma' within many common, 'rational', atheistic ideologies though.

Agreed that "atheists" can be dogmatic. But "atheism" is not atheists.