EAllusion wrote:One of the more contemptible and absurd crackpots that Daniel C. Peterson
champions is a fellow by the name of Paul Vitz. Chances are you have not heard of him, but he is a minor celebrity among the fundamentalist protestant community that is also into people like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. He is famous for arguing that atheism is caused by a metaphysical oedipus complex that results from having defective fathers. You can read a short version of his thesis here:
http://www.origins.org/articles/vitz_ps ... heism.html Learn about the psychology of atheism.
Oh, what a weird piece of work that is. This struck me as odd:
In summary, because of my social needs to assimilate, because of my professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology, and because of my personal needs for a convenient lifestyle-for all these needs atheism was simply the best policy. Looking back on these motives, I can honestly say that a return to atheism has all the appeal of a return to adolescence.
So, he's basing his own need to fit in with his losing his religion and saying people just aren't up to belief because it's too trying? Aren't atheists in the minority in America? Aren't atheists stigmatized? No doubt there are enclaves where it is acceptable to be a non-believer, yet, that's certainly not true for many parts of the country and even the world. No doubt wanting to fit into ones social group is a return to a sort of adolescence, yet, what he seemingly doesn't recognize is that the easier route would be to go along with the vast majority of theists in this country.
Then he goes on to state this later:
Very briefly, other famous atheists seem to have had a similar relationship to their fathers. Karl Marx made it clear that he didn't respect his father. An important part in this was that his father converted to Christianity-not out of any religious conviction-but out of a desire to make life easier.
So, is being a believer easier or not? Social pressure there or not?