Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (3307)	11/13/2000 10:48:53 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Vitz's work does not garner a whole lot of respect in the academic community! Imagine using scripture and first person subjective experience to bolster a scientific theory!! LOL!! "Overall, Vitz's work is lacking in credability and verifiability since he includes his own personal life and the lives of dead people as evidence. Professor Vitz needs to study psychology and Atheism in more depth before making such outrageous claims. Studing scripture may be of help:" "The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness." Proverb 15:2 Reply To The Psychology of Atheism "Beliefs, including religious ones, are learned. Which makes Atheism a normal state of affairs and religious beliefs a learned "abnormality". No psychological theory is necessary to exlain the causes of a normal base state. Any psychological theory of learning, attitude change or socialization can explain the causes of religious belief." --[Rosemary Lyndall, clinical Neuro-psychologist] Paul Vitz presents Atheism as a result of unconscious and psychological factors. Such a non-belief is believed to be due to an upbringing in a household that is secualr and where a father is either weak or absent. Citing as evidence for his positions is a couple of case studies of famous non-theists and his own personal experiment with Atheism and Freudian psychoanalytic theory. My paper will present the gross flaws in Vitz's reasoning and misunderstanding of psychological and scientific study. Mr. Vitz relies heavily on Freud as being the epitome of Atheism and the greatest example of an Atheistic personality. Using Freud as the definition of Atheism grossly overgeneralizes Atheists. Unlike theists there is no governing scripture (such as the Bible, Koran) from which to base a generalization on. The only characteristic all Atheists have is their non-belief in a supreme deity. Already in the third paragraph Vitz tells the audience that his paper is intended as a revenge tactic more than an academic evaluation of Atheism. Overlooking the intent of the paper the reader learns of the possible origins of Atheism. Atheism is a psychological phenomena being the result of neurosis. An unconscious direction against religion usually begins during childhood in a "spritually impoverished environment". A religious person is "blessed" with an upbringing that makes belief in God easier. Vitz relies on Scripture to label non-belief and a non-religous upbringing as a sin. In this paragraph Vitz presents his bias and lack of credability. Saying that people are "blessed" by being raised in a religious household he makes the judgement that religion is inherently good even if that religion happens to be Satanism. Further on he labels everything non-religious as sin or inherently bad, in addition he justifies his position with the Holy Bible rather than a credible scientific journal. Vitz includes non-belief as being a result of neurosis yet no defined neurosis in the DSM-IV meets his the qualifications he applies to Atheists. Seeing neurosis as a method of coping with everyday problems is irrelevant in the case of Atheism. Theists rely on their deity and prayers for guidance through difficult times. Atheists have no such crutch and must face any difficulty without spiritual assistance or putting blame on spirits. Theists also can rely on the church and religious community for support. Atheists make up only 10-15% of the U.S. population and are poorly organized therefore they are isolated from the majority and have little means of community support. In the introduction's final paragraph Vitz claims we all have "a free choice to accept God or reject Him." Again we see his bias. Originally the reader is presented with the belief that this paper deals with the psychology of those who do not believe in any god but now it is meant to include those who reject Jehovah, the Jewish, Christian, Islamic deity. Vitz now defines Atheism as any belief system that does not follow the monotheistic traditions. This would include Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Animism and hundreds of other religions. Besides defining Atheism Vitz also feels it necessary to explain to the reader a person's goal in life, which is to move towards God. It appears Mr. Vitz cannot distinguish psychology from philosophy. He attempts to explain human nature but fails to provide any supporting evidences. One could easily argue (using the same reasoning) that it is human nature to move away from god and pursue their own beliefs. Social and Personal Motives Here is the most biased part of Mr. Vitz's essay. Here he useshis personal life as proof of how all Atheists act. Believing that his motives for becoming an Atheist pertains to all Atheists is like calling all Blacks lazy and stupid because a Black student didn't hand his assignment in on time. Albeit to say Vitz sees Atheists as "superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual or moral integrity". Vitz breaks down his first-person "scientific" study into three categories as his reasoning for experimenting with Atheism. These stages are: General Socialization, Specific Socialization and Personal Convience. Summing up General Socialization he says Atheism is a result of trying to fit in with the crowd. Considering that non-religious types make up on 10-15% of the U.S. population it's difficult to see how someone could fit into society by joining a minority. However Vitz bases his conclusion by listening to the testimony of three people who felt embarrassed about their ethnic background. Hardly a representation of the U.S. population. Under Specific Socialization Vitz desired to be an Atheist to fit in with the psychological community. While the majority of psychologists are secular there is no religious requirement to study psychology so Vitz's irrational beliefs to be accepted by other beliefs cannot be blamed on the psychological commnity for they did not force him to reject his faith. Personal Convience has to be the most irrational belief of Vitz's. It is Vitz's belief that religious belief requires the loss of pleasures and time. In Vitz's view a real Christian has to participate in "church services, church groups, prayer, scripture reading and time spent helping others". And since Vitz was currently going to school he couldn't be a serious believer. While church attendence is encouraged it isn't a requirement for faith and prayer and scripture reading doesn't take up much time. Vitz also makes the odd claim that in order to be religious one cannot enjoy sex, so a real believer must numb his/her nerve endings in the genital areas in order to reproduce. Vitz justifies his view by quoting Mortimer Adler. So we have two people who agree but that doesn't mean it applies to millions of christians and Atheists. If Atheism is such a convience then why is it so unpopular in this "secular neo-pagan" society? Psycholoanalytic Motives Not so oddly much of this section is a criticism of Freud's view of religion rather than an explanation of the motives of Atheism. This gives the reader insight into Vitz's extreme dislike for Atheists, particularly Freud. Apparently Vitz is using his paper as a format for a personal attack on Freud since it was mentioned that Freud's views on religion are his own personal opinion, not psychoanalytic theory. The Oedipus Complex It is unusual for Vitz to utilize the Oedipus Complex to justify his position since this theory of Freud's is disregarded by the majority in the psychogical community as unscientific and not representative of the general population. Although the theory is largely ignored Vitz holds onto it as a desperate attempt to discredit Freud and humiliate Atheists but even Vitz manipulates the theory and falls short of his goal. Freud says the Oedipus complex is never fulfilled and as a result everyone develops neurosis to deal with this unfulfillment. Vitz says that Atheists manage to overcome this complex by rejecting God (the father) as a result Atheists would not have any neurosis. However Vitz claims that Atheists are neurotic in the fifth paragraph in his essay. So we have a contradiction but that isn't his only fallacy. If we are to believe God can represent the father in the Oedipus who represents the mother? The key goal in the Oedipus is to possess the mother not destroy the father, that is a side issue. Vitz is claiming that the key concept of the Oedipus is to destroy the father without there being an object to gain, such as a mother. Vitz tires to make up for this blatent crucifixtion of Freud's theory by calling all Atheists promiscious. Now Vitz has no evidence to support this claim except for perhaps past experience. Instead he feels it necessary to rely on the history of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and the fictional character of James Bond. Maybe if all Atheists were billionaires living in huge mansions with gorgeous women running around then it may apply to male or lesbian Atheists but Mr. Hefner is not representative of the Atheist population. I must also add again that James Bond is not real, he is fiction like Indiana Jones (a promiscious christian character). Vitz is also leading us to assume all religious people live a celibate or monogamous lifestyle despite the fact this isn't true and some religions encourage polygamy (Islam, Mormanism, Satanism). A note to add is that Vitz cites Voltaire as an Atheist representative eventhough Voltaire is a deist and believes in God, so once again Vitz redefines what a religious or Atheist person is. Defective Father Theory Realizing and admitting the flaws in the Oedipus Vitz turns to his own "Defective Father Theory" to explain the origins of Atheism which is based on a Freudian concept which he mentions. In this section Vitz actually manages to review the case history of eight prominent Atheists to come to the conclusion that Atheism results from an absent or unrespected father in a person's youth. Despite the extremely small sample size Vitz is still overlooking one important factor: theists experience childhood with an absent or abusize father but don't end up as an Atheist. With a divorce rate in the U.S. of 50% there should be a much larger number of Atheists but there has not been a drastic rise of Atheists. We would have to assume that religious persons don't experience a defective father. Madalyn Murray O'Hair (who did love her father) has a son who is a fundamentalist Christian (William Murray). He was raised in an Atheist family and hates his parents so by all means he should be an Atheist. And when we consider Vitz's definition of a religous person there are billions of households with abusive, negligent, cowardly or dead fathers we would assume that the majority belief in the world is Atheism yet many people still believe in a deity figure. Vitz overlooks the fact that everyone is born Atheist but it is only through religious education and socialization that people become religious. He did express this fact on page one, paragraph six that this upbringing required a father. A defective father would be a reinforcer for Atheism but is by no means a requirement since Atheism is already a pre-condition. In conclusion, the reader has learned that Atheists are superficial, irrational, neurotic, promiscious, immoral, unintelligent and father haters who choose Atheism as a convienent, permissive, and exciting lifestyle. Using very few case studies and sample sizes (including a fictional character) Vitz develops his hypothesis mixing his own theoritical frameworks with a perverted view of Freudian psycholanalysis. Vitz chooses to ignore statistical data, case studies, and other psychoanalytical theories that would conflict with Vitz's narrowly focused research. He fails to provide an accurate definition of Atheism, ignores the roles of mothers as parental figures in the Oedipus Complex, and he even contradicts himself at times. His paper is used more as an attack on Atheism and Freud than a scholarly work. Overall, Vitz's work is lacking in credability and verifiability since he includes his own personal life and the lives of dead people as evidence. Professor Vitz needs to study psychology and Atheism in more depth before making such outrageous claims. Studing scripture may be of help: "The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness." Proverb 15:2