- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFreudian slip would I suspect be closer to the mark, revealing what he really thought.
Have to say that "intemperate remark" isn't a phrase that I would have assigned to it.
Should I assume that you don't know if the passage I cited played a role in how he views women?
I'm sure I could also find a place to use of the words "vile contemptuous spewing of
repugnant and repulsive hate speech delivered from a place of unthinking privilege
and safety to a person forced to live in the shadow of that privilege and power."
The post that was quoted here has been removedAn infant's status of "lack of belief..." doesn't equates with volitional choice of acceptance or rejection; therefore, ipso facto, there's no change in status or consequences, i.e., no decision was made. An infant's mind hasn't considered either option.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
"The Causes of Atheism" Written by James Spiegel on 28 January 2010.
The Atheists Discussed thus far are all scholars. But, of course, not all atheists are academics. Like believers, they can be found in every sphere of society. In fact, some of the more well known atheists are celebrities. Actress Jodie Foster, for example, has spoken openly about her rejection of all things spiritual. In an interesting case of art imitating life, she has noted the similarities between her own beliefs and those of Eleanor Arroway, the astronomer she plays in the film Contact: I absolutely believe what Ellie believes—that there is no direct evidence [for God], so how could you ask me to believe in God when there’s absolutely no evidence that I can see? I do believe in the beauty and the awe-inspiring mystery of the science that’s out there that we haven’t discovered yet, that there are scientific explanations for phenomena that we call mystical because we don’t know any better.
The late George Carlin was more emphatic about his atheism, even turning an anti-religion harangue into a comedy bit. Here is an excerpt from his 1999 HBO special: When it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize . . . something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being.
This is the kind of [stuff] you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. So Carlin gave up his efforts to believe in God. He opted for atheism “rather than be just another . . . religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn’t [care]. ”Notice that Carlin’s and Foster’s reasons for unbelief are founded on the two pillars of atheism discussed earlier. Foster’s rationale for her view reveals a latent positivism, the notion that all knowledge must be verifiable by the senses. Carlin, on the other hand, provides a tart version of the objection fromevil, which is as thought-provoking as it is irreverent. But Jodie Foster and George Carlin have more in common than just being thoughtful celebrity atheists.
They also share the experience of having lost their fathers while they were young. Before she was even born, Foster’s father left her family. Hermother raised young Jodie, eventually guiding her into the acting career she enjoys to this day. Carlin also grew up fatherless. His mother left his alcoholic, abusive father when George was two months old, and she raised him and his older brother on her own. Is there any relevance to the fact that these two atheists grew up without a father? Some recent research strongly suggests that there is. In this chapter we will look at evidence for the claim that broken father relationships are a contributing cause of atheism. We will also consider evidence that immoral behavior plays a significant role in motivating views on ethics and religion.We will see how desires often drive a person’s beliefs when it comes to such issues, and I will propose that herein lies the explanation for atheism.
The Faith of The Fatherless Paul C.Vitz teaches psychology at NewYork University. Though now a practicing Roman Catholic,Vitz was an atheist until his late thirties. Reflecting on his change of mind, Vitz observes that his “reasons” for becoming an atheist in the first place, during his college years,were not intellectual so much as social and psychological. Eventually, he began to focus his psychological research on atheism, and in 1999 he published the provocative Faith of the Fatherless,which proposes that “atheism of the strong or intense type is to a substantial degree generated by the peculiar psychological needs of its advocates.” Looking at the lives of numerous renowned atheists,Vitz’s study reveals a stunning link between atheism and fatherlessness. This he expresses as the “defective father hypothesis”—the notion that a broken relationship with one’s father predisposes some people to reject God.
While some might be critical of any attempt to psychologize the phenomenon of atheism,Vitz notes: “We must remember that it is atheists themselves who began the psychological approach to the question of belief.” Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.Of course, a principal figure to whom Vitz’s observation applies is Sigmund Freud,whomaintained that religious belief arises out of psychological need.According to Freud, people project their concept of a loving father to the entire cosmos to fulfill their wish for ultimate comfort in a dangerous world.However, it was this same Freud who developed the concept of the “Oedipus complex,” characterized by a repressed sexual desire for one’smother andmurderous jealousy of one’s father.Vitz notes that here Freud inadvertently provides a straightforward rationale for understanding the wish-fulfilling origin of the rejection of God. . . . Freud makes the simple and easily understandable claim that once a child or youth is disappointed in or loses respect for his earthly father, belief in a heavenly father becomes impossible. . . . In other words, an atheist’s disappointment in and resentment of his own father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God.
Thus, Freud’s own theory can be used to explain atheism. And, as Vitz proceeds to show, the empirical data bears out this account. The following are several cases from the modern period explored by Vitz that confirm his thesis.
Atheists Whose Fathers Died:
• David Hume—was two years old when his father died
• Arthur Schopenhauer—was sixteen when his father died
• Friedrich Nietzsche—was four years old when his father died
• Bertrand Russell—was four years old when his father died
• Jean-Paul Sartre—was 15 months old when his father died
• Albert Camus—was 1 year old when his father died.
Atheists with Abusive or Weak Fathers:
• Thomas Hobbes—was seven years old when his father deserted the family
• Voltaire—had a bitter relationship with his father, whose surname (Arouet) he disowned
• Baron d’Holbach—was estranged from his father and rejected his surname (Thiry)
• Ludwig Feuerbach—was scandalized by his father’s public rejection of his family (to live with another woman)
• Samuel Butler—was physically and emotionally brutalized by his father
• Sigmund Freud—had contempt for his father as a “sexual pervert” and as a weak man
• H. G.Wells—despised his father who neglected the family
• Madalyn Murray O’Hair—intensely hated her father, probably due to child abuse
• Albert Ellis—was neglected by his father, who eventually abandoned the family
While this list is impressive,Vitz’s overall case for his thesis is not limited to these but includes analyses of well-known theists from the same era. These scholars had consistently healthy relationships with their fathers or significant father figures. This confirms by contrast Vitz’s thesis about their atheist peers. Such prominent modern theists include Blaise Pascal, George Berkeley, Joseph Butler, Thomas Reid, Edmund Burke,William Paley,William Wilberforce, Friedrich Schleiermacher, John Henry Newman, Alexis de Tocqueville, Soren Kierkegaard, G. K. Chesterton, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Buber, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Abraham Heschel. Of course, none of the fathers of these men were perfect moral exemplars. Some, such as the elder Kierkegaard, grieved or disappointed their sons by their misbehavior. Still, the relationships persevered, and resentment did not prevail. In most cases, these men had strong love, admiration, and respect for their fathers or father figures.
To be clear,Vitz’s thesis does not imply that having a defective father guarantees one will become an atheist. He takes care to emphasize this point. This is because, as Vitz puts it, “all of us still have a free choice to accept or reject God. . . . As a consequence of particular past or present circumstances some may find it much harder to believe in God. But presumably they can still choose to move toward God or to move away.” In fact, some people with defective fathers do not turn away from God but become vibrant believers and faithful practitioners of their faith.Given the strong majority of religious believers, it appears that most children of defective fathers manage to resist the temptation of atheism. Still others, such as C. S. Lewis and Antony Flew, give up their atheism even after many years of unbelief. So the psychological dynamics of atheism are very complex, but the impact of the father relationship does appear to be profound.
I would add that when it comes to atheism, as with any other behavior, an explanation is not an excuse.To identify a cause of a belief or behavior does not imply that the person is not morally responsible for it. So even if we can causally explain why some people reject God, this does not mean that they aren’t responsible for doing so. Rather, the lesson seems to be that having a defective father presents special challenges to faith, but that this kind of psychological wound can only predispose one to atheism." (1 of 4 to be continued)
https://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:the-causes-of-atheism&catid=96:bonus-content&Itemid=80
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyLet's look at what D64 wrote:
The body and mind of a viable newborn at the nano moment of birth is in an indeterminate developmental life chapter with alternative cognitive possibilities on the horizon. Second is deliberation over alternative possibilities; third, a volitional act of choice. "Everyone's born without a belief in the existence of God(s)." signifies ignorance not acceptance or rejection.
"Everyone's born as an atheist, without a belief in the existence of God(s)."
Based on what you've written here, I gather that you don't have an issue with the underlying concept that "everyone's born without a belief in the existence of God(s)."
So it would seem that you only have an issue with D64 having also referred to the token for the underlying concept - the word "atheist".
Alrighty then.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"The Causes of Atheism"
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]"The Causes of Atheism" Written by James Spiegel on 28 January 2010. The Atheists Discussed thus far are all scholars. But, of course, not all atheists are academics. Like believers, they can be found in every sphere of society. In fact, some of the more well known atheists are celebrities. Actress J ...[text shortened]... hp?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:the-causes-of-atheism&catid=96:bonus-content&Itemid=80[/b]
"Now if Vitz’s theory is correct, we could expect many atheists we know to have a defective father. This naturally raises the question, What about the new atheists? Do they confirm this thesis?We know that Daniel Dennett’s father died in a plane crash in 1947, when Dennett was just five years old. As Vitz notes, losing one’s father at such a young age is particularly devastating, since it is during this developmental period that a child bonds with his or her father.
Christopher Hitchens’ father appears to have been very distant, so much so that Hitchens confesses, “I don’t remember a thing about him. It was all her [his mother], for me.” Tragically, when Hitchens was twenty-four his mother killed herself in a suicide pact with a lover. After his mother’s death,Hitchens says, “I no longer really had a family,” which is an especially sad statement considering his father was still alive. As for Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, there is very little information available regarding their relationships with their fathers. Harris, in particular, has maintained such a low public profile that personal information about him of any kind is scant.
Whatever causal role having a defective father plays in one’s becoming an atheist, Vitz has surely uncovered a significant aspect of the psychology of atheism. But why is the father relationship so important that its absence should create such an impediment to belief?We’ve already noted Freud’s inadvertent explanation in terms of the Oedipus complex. But from a Judeo-Christian perspective, the proper explanation goes back to human nature. Human beings were made in God’s image, and the father-child relationship mirrors that of humans as God’s “offspring.” We unconsciously (and often consciously, depending on one’s worldview) conceive of God after the pattern of our earthly father.
This is even encouraged in Scripture, as Jesus constantly refers to God as our “heavenly father. ”When one has a healthy father relationship and a father who is a decent moral model, then this metaphor and the psychological patterns it inspires are welcome. However,when one’s earthly father is defective, whether because of death, abandonment, or abuse, this necessarily impacts one’s thinking about God. Whether we call it psychological projection, transfer, or displacement, the lack of a good father is a handicap when it comes to faith.
Delivery To Depravity The eminent twentieth-century historian Paul Johnson describes his Intellectuals as “an examination of the moral and judgmental credentials of leading intellectuals to give advice to humanity on how to conduct its affairs.” Thus begins a 342-page historical expose that recounts behavior so sleazy and repugnant that one almost feels corrupted by reading it. Most disturbing are not necessarily the details of the sordid lives described by Johnson but the fact that the subjects are often regarded as intellectual heroes. Not merely successful people of letters in their day, they were scholars whose influence was, and continues to be, felt worldwide. They mastered their crafts as novelists, poets, playwrights, and philosophers and set forth ideals and values for ordering society.
So for most readers it comes as a bit of a shock to learn that so many leading intellectuals were selfserving egotists,whose ostensible interest in humankind generally was belied by their callous disregard for those nearest and dearest to them, especially familymembers. Among those examined by Johnson are Jean Jacques Rousseau—intensely vain and wildly irresponsible; sired five illegitimate children and abandoned them to orphanages, which in his social context meant almost certain early death Percy Bysshe Shelley—a chronic swindler with a ferocious temper; also an adulterer who, with three different women, fathered seven children whom he basically ignored, including one he abandoned to an orphanage, where the baby died at eighteen months Karl Marx—fiercely anti-semitic;
egocentric, slothful, and lecherous; exploitive of friends and unfaithful to his wife; sired an illegitimate son, whom he refused to acknowledge Henrik Ibsen—a vain, spiteful, and heartless man, caring only for money; an exploiter of women and contemptuous of the needy, even among his own family Leo Tolstoy—megalomaniacal and misogynistic; a chronic gambler and adulterer; a seducer of women and contemptuous of his wife Ernest Hemingway—ironically named, given that he was a pathological liar; also a misogynistic womanizer and selfdestructive alcoholic Bertrand Russell—misogynistic and a serial adulterer; a chronic seducer of women, especially very young women, even in his old age Jean-Paul Sartre—notorious for his sexual escapades with female students, often procured by his colleague and lover Simone de Beauvoir.
The upshot of Johnson’s book is that not only do many leading modern intellectuals fail to live up to their billing as moral visionaries, but their moral perversity should cause us to question the legitimacy of their ideas. This is because one’s personal conduct impacts one’s scholarly projects. And, as Johnson shows, the works of these intellectuals were often calculated to justify or minimize the shame of their own debauchery. Among the diverse vices that characterize the intellectuals studied by Johnson, brazen sexual promiscuity is the one recurring theme. So it is not surprising that most of these men explicitly rejected the Judeo-Christian worldview. Indeed, many of their scholarly and creative works openly challenged the values of this tradition, which condemns the sorts of lascivious behavior that dominated their lives.
Aldous Huxley, another significant modern intellectual, had much to say on this point. In the following quote he refers to a nihilistic worldview, but this could as easily be supplanted by Marxism, Sartrean existentialism, or Shelley’s vision of a religion-free society: "For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Elsewhere in this same essay, Huxley is even more candid: "Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless."
As Paul Johnson argues, the philosophical systems and social ideals of many modern intellectuals were decided by their will to be immoral, not their quest for truth.They wrote the books they did to suit their personal lives, not vice versa. This point is well expressed by E. Michael Jones, who writes, “There are ultimately only two alternatives in the intellectual life: either one conforms desire to the truth or one conforms truth to desire. These two positions represent opposite poles between which a continuum of almost infinite gradations exist.” (2 of 4 to be continued)
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Each normal human being is born with a mind that's unwritten on, Tabula Rasa: neutral toward the words 'atheist and 'theist'. The decision point of god curiosity/consciousness has yet to occur. It's a individual decision with volition engaged."
Let's look at what D64 wrote:
"Everyone's born as an atheist, without a belief in the existence of God(s)."
Based on what you've written here, I gather that you don't have an issue with the underlying concept that "everyone's born without a belief in the existence of God(s)."
So it would seem that you only have an issue with D64 having also referred to the token for the underlying concept - the word "atheist".
Alrighty then.
Why the urgent imperative to slap a label on an infant which only knows the difference between comfort and discomfort?
Edit Note: If the cultural norms include labeling infants at birth, might as well also assign third parties to make vocational predeterminations: "Cynthia will become a successful brain surgeon; James will work at odd jobs for minimum wage."
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf "each normal human being is born with a mind that's unwritten on, Tabula Rasa", then "each normal human being is born" "without a belief in the existence of God(s)."
"Each normal human being is born with a mind that's unwritten on, Tabula Rasa: neutral toward the words 'atheist and 'theist'. The decision point of god curiosity/consciousness has yet to occur. It's a individual decision with volition engaged."
Why the urgent imperative to slap a label on an infant which only knows the difference between comfort and discomfort?
It's simply a statement of fact.
That you take issue with a statement of fact seems irrational.
Do you also take issue with the following?:
"Everyone's born without a belief in the existence of planets."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Everyone's born without a belief in the existence of planets."
If "each normal human being is born with a mind that's unwritten on, Tabula Rasa", then "each normal human being is born" "without a belief in the existence of God(s)."
It's simply a statement of fact.
That you take issue with a statement of fact seems irrational.
Do you also take issue with the following?:
"Everyone's born without a belief in the existence of planets."
... or the existence of intellectual fulfillment or the joys of marital sex or the rules governing how chess pieces move: these empirical and rational experiences and decisions regarding choices are still future. Why presume to label any category?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBabies have all kinds of labels applied to them.
"Everyone's born without a belief in the existence of planets."
... or the existence of intellectual fulfillment or the joys of marital sex or the rules governing how chess pieces move: these empirical and rational experiences and decisions regarding choices are still future. Why presume to label any category?
Gender Male/female/other [boy/girl]
Weight 6lbs 4 oz
Name "Gregory" "Louise"
Birthday 21st September 1972
The list goes on.
Words like 'male' or 'atheist' are pointers to a concept.
The word atheist points to the concept of a sentient being who doesn't
have a belief that gods exist.
As babies quite clearly don't have a god concept let alone believe in it,
they belong to the set of "sentient beings who lack a belief in gods".
The only way to get out of that is to claim that either they do in fact have
a belief in gods [which would be stupid] or that they are not sentient beings.
Take your pick.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWho says there is no death????
"It is hard to have patience with people who say 'There is no death' or "Death doesn't matter." There is death.
And whatever is matters. And whatever happens has consequences, and it and they are irrevocable and irreversible.
You might as well say that birth doesn't matter." (C. S. Lewis)
Oh yes... Theists who claim that there is an afterlife.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDo you find the label atheist or theist on birth certificates?
Babies have all kinds of labels applied to them.
Gender Male/female/other [boy/girl]
Weight 6lbs 4 oz
Name "Gregory" "Louise"
Birthday 21st September 1972
The list goes on.
Words like 'male' or 'atheist' are pointers to a concept.
The word atheist points to the concept of a sentient being who doesn't
have a belief that gods exist.
As ba ...[text shortened]... belief in gods [which would be stupid] or that they are not sentient beings.
Take your pick.