Rating: 
Summary: Pretty Good
Review: A pretty interesting book and an easy read. Turns childish athiest argument about the psychological need for theism on its head. For those who believe Athiestism isnt a mental problem I suggest checking out David's review (the "author" of athiest universe)clearly an unloved child. Always needing to be the center of attention because as a child his father probably paid no attention to him. One star for a book he most likely didn't read?? ooh it must have gotten his panties in a knot. (but I kid davey boy) Also he has a creepy moustache and a white turtle neck??? I wouldn't let this guy watch my children if you know what I mean. also his hobby seems to be to go to books about God and give them one star review (oooh tough guy!). If I looked like him I probably wouldn't believe in god either.
Rating: 
Summary: A response from the author of "Atheist Universe"
Review: First of all, I want to state my "credentials" for writing this review. I am one of the "intense" atheists whom Paul Vitz attempts to psychoanalyze in his book. I am also author of the book "Atheist Universe," which Paul Vitz would undoubtedly describe as extremist in its defense of absolute atheism. I am also author of what is probably the world's most widely used patient handout for clients of cognitive-behavior psychotherapy (published by The Albert Ellis Institute).
If these two facts permit me to express a personal opinion on the relationship of psychology to atheism, then I would like to submit that this book is the worst piece of unscientific garbage I've ever read. This book perhaps reflects the author's own life experiences or those of his friends or associates. I don't know. But there is no valid science whatever to backup any assertion in this book connecting atheism and a lacking father figure. The opposite is very likely true. Those who lack a loving earthly father most feel the need to invent a loving heavenly father as a substitute. My own father was (and still is) the most incredibly loving parent any child could hope for. Although he has Parkinson's Disease, he is invariably upbeat, positive and ALWAYS loving and supportive of me. But I am by no means alone. Virtually every atheist I ever met boasted exceptionally good parents, both fathers AND mothers.
What truly angers me about this book is that it is so very insulting to many atheists and their families. Trust me, as an atheist author, I'm very used to receiving my daily dose of Christian hate mail. I take such bombast in stride. If people such as Paul Vitz want to disagree with atheists on theological issues, that's certainly their perfect right. However, it ceases to be a right when someone, completely without justification, attempts to slander and degrade someone else's father or other family members. I wonder how Paul Vitz would react if I wrote a book stating that "anyone claiming a relationship between atheism and a poor father figure must himself have fat, stupid children." Such a nexus on my part would be viewed, not only as an indication of ignorance, but as evidence of my lack of common civility. Yet an identically absurd and insulting position is the very foundation of his entire trash-talk book.
Science does not care whether its conclusions insult or flatter us. So I'm in no way asserting that a valid scientific study should be suppressed because it hurts my feelings or those of other atheists. I'm merely stating that Paul Vitz's book is not a valid scientific study.
David Mills
Author of "Atheist Universe"
Rating: 
Summary: Vitz does establish a pattern...
Review: First off, to attack this book as "unscientific" is just disingenous. Vitz does admit, in his book, that there are exceptions to every rule. This is not a book to prove or disprove the existance of God, and the author says as much. What Paul C. Vitz sets out to do, he does accomplish. He does show there is a pattern to how the most famous and well known atheists related, as children, to their fathers or the father figures in their lives. He also looks at famous theists and does show that, for the most part, they had positive relationships with their fathers or other adult males in their lives. One of the more interesting points Vitz makes is that atheist philosophy, which says it so admires science, is in many respects in complete contradiction with what scientists believe about how religious thought develops. The author is fair in encouraging the reader to make up their own minds based on arguments found in philosophy, theology, science and history, about the existance or non-existance of God. There is refreshingly, no bold pronouncement here. Vitz makes a good argument that there is a psychology to atheism. Finally, unlike the pronouncements and writings of many atheists, there is no arrogance here, just good scholarship. This is a good, quick, and interesting read.
Rating: 
Summary: What "atheism" is
Review: I give the book an average grade. It's an interesting psycholological theory of atheism, and may be a decent rhetorical counter to atheist attempts to reduce thheistic belief to psychological or cultural needs. On the other hand, to point to the motivations of a belief in order to discredit the belief is fallacious ad hominem argumentation.The main point of my review is to address something another reviewer raised. Another reviewer made the popular claim that "atheism" just means "without theism", and that we all begin life as atheists because we don't begin life as theists. You often see this reasoning, but never see the logical deconstruction that it deserves. The argument for this position is extraordinarily weak. First, many if not most words have multiple meanings. Clearly, Vitz is referring to that usage of the label "atheist" which applies to those who affirmatively believe that there is no God. That is a legitimate usage, since it is a common usage, and meanings of words are just descriptions of what is meant by them by the people who use the words in question. Clearly (as evidenced by most dictionaries, which are based on conventional usages of terms), many people who describe themselves as "atheists" mean that they affirmatively believe that there is no God. That has in fact been the traditional meaning of the term. The traditional word for someone who simply lacks a belief in God's existence is "agnostic". So it is mistake to refer to "the" meaning of atheism being "without theism", since Vitz is clearly using the word in an acceptable and standard sense. Second, the etymological case routinely for the proposition that "atheism" just means "without theism" (and hence that we all began as atheists) is weak to the point of being silly. Advocates of this line of reasoning like to point out that the words "atheist" and "atheism" have the prefix "a", which can mean without or not. Hence, they argue, "atheism" means "without theism". As analogies, they often point to such words as "amoral" and "asymmetrical", since those words mean, respectively, without morality and without symmetry. The main problem with those analogies is that they are both adjectives (note that they both end with the adjectival suffix "al"), whereas "atheism" and "atheist" are both nouns. Subsequently, a word which describes something as "without theism" or "not theist" would be an adjective. Hence, their analysis entails that "atheism" and "atheist" would be both adjectives. That makes for some absurd consequences. For example, if "atheism" simply meant "without theism", and if we thus all began life without theism, then the sentence "Babies are atheism" would be true. Now they would respond by saying "No, just that "Babies are atheists" is true". Well, not really, since that sentence uses "theist" as a noun, whereas if "atheist" meant "not theist" or "without theist", then "atheist" would be an adjective, as noted above. Furthermore, if "atheist" means "not a theist", then everything that's not a theist (not just babies) would be atheist. I had two waffles for breakfast this morning, neither of which was a theist. So I guess (by their reasoning) that I ate two atheists this morning. Furthermore, since my breakfast lacked theism, I guess I ate atheism as well. Silliness.
Rating:
Summary: What "atheism" is
Review: I give the book an average grade. It's an interesting psycholological theory of atheism, and may be a decent rhetorical counter to atheist attempts to reduce thheistic belief to psychological or cultural needs. On the other hand, to point to the motivations of a belief in order to discredit the belief is fallacious ad hominem argumentation. The main point of my review is to address something another reviewer raised. Another reviewer made the popular claim that "atheism" just means "without theism", and that we all begin life as atheists because we don't begin life as theists. You often see this reasoning, but never see the logical deconstruction that it deserves. The argument for this position is extraordinarily weak. First, many if not most words have multiple meanings. Clearly, Vitz is referring to that usage of the label "atheist" which applies to those who affirmatively believe that there is no God. That is a legitimate usage, since it is a common usage, and meanings of words are just descriptions of what is meant by them by the people who use the words in question. Clearly (as evidenced by most dictionaries, which are based on conventional usages of terms), many people who describe themselves as "atheists" mean that they affirmatively believe that there is no God. That has in fact been the traditional meaning of the term. The traditional word for someone who simply lacks a belief in God's existence is "agnostic". So it is mistake to refer to "the" meaning of atheism being "without theism", since Vitz is clearly using the word in an acceptable and standard sense. Second, the etymological case routinely for the proposition that "atheism" just means "without theism" (and hence that we all began as atheists) is weak to the point of being silly. Advocates of this line of reasoning like to point out that the words "atheist" and "atheism" have the prefix "a", which can mean without or not. Hence, they argue, "atheism" means "without theism". As analogies, they often point to such words as "amoral" and "asymmetrical", since those words mean, respectively, without morality and without symmetry. The main problem with those analogies is that they are both adjectives (note that they both end with the adjectival suffix "al"), whereas "atheism" and "atheist" are both nouns. Subsequently, a word which describes something as "without theism" or "not theist" would be an adjective. Hence, their analysis entails that "atheism" and "atheist" would be both adjectives. That makes for some absurd consequences. For example, if "atheism" simply meant "without theism", and if we thus all began life without theism, then the sentence "Babies are atheism" would be true. Now they would respond by saying "No, just that "Babies are atheists" is true". Well, not really, since that sentence uses "theist" as a noun, whereas if "atheist" meant "not theist" or "without theist", then "atheist" would be an adjective, as noted above. Furthermore, if "atheist" means "not a theist", then everything that's not a theist (not just babies) would be atheist. I had two waffles for breakfast this morning, neither of which was a theist. So I guess (by their reasoning) that I ate two atheists this morning. Furthermore, since my breakfast lacked theism, I guess I ate atheism as well. Silliness.
Rating:
Summary: An Anecdote to Support Dr. Vitz...
Review: I won't write another review - lots of pros and cons and you can judge for yourselves. Perhaps this anecdote will give you additional insight... I heard Dr. Vitz speak at UF several years ago. He presented this topic. At the end of his talk, there was a Q&A period. After several interesting but very safe questions, a young man came to the microphone and asked, "My life fits your theory to a 't.' I am an atheist and my father abandoned our family when I was small. What advice to you have for me?" Dr. Vitz thought for a moment (you could have heard a pin drop in the auditorium) and replied, "Go, find a child who is in the same situation that you were in, and be the father figure for that child." There wasn't a dry eye in the audience; I'm still moved just relating the exchange.
Rating:
Summary: Like father, like son
Review: Over a decade ago Paul Johnson wrote an interesting book entitled Intellectuals. In it he looked at the personal lives of some famous Western thinkers, such as Rosseau and Marx. He noted that many of these great intellectuals had private lives that left a lot to be desired. He noted, in other words, a connection between belief and behavior. In this book Paul Vitz provides a similar kind of study. He examines the lives of a number of well known atheists, and discovers that most of them had an absent or abusive father. He argues that those who have had poor relations with their earthly father also tend to have had a poor image of their heavenly father. Vitz first examines those atheists whose fathers died when they were relatively young - atheists such as Nietzsche, Sartre and Bertrand Russell. Then he assesses atheists who had weak or abusive fathers, eg., Voltaire, Feuerbach and Freud. Finally, as a control group, he studies some notable theists and their fathers - men such as Edmund Burke, Pascal, Chesterton and John Henry Newman. These psychological profiles make a strong case for his main thesis - fathers matter, and the worldview we carry with us into adulthood is largely determined in childhood. With the resurgence of the fatherhood movement, especially in America, this is all the more timely. Ideas do have consequences, and our ideas are heavily influenced by our upbringing. Thus the importance of a good upbringing - one that includes a mother and a father. Vitz warns about over-simplification, and recognises that there are a multitude of factors that explain or determine how we develop. However, the fact that so many atheists have similar background does make for an intriguing hypothesis. And the details Vitz provides are quite revealing. Consider but a few examples. Jean-Paul Sartre's father died when he was just 15 months old. Throughout much of his adult life he mentions fathers, and denigrates fatherhood. His philosophy promotes the idea that man can become God, that we are self-made men. More than one biographer has noted his obsession about fathers and his atheism may well tie in to his own absent father. According to her son (who later became a Christian), Madalyn Murray O'Hair intensely hated her father. In his memoirs, he records an ugly fight in which she tried to kill her father with a ten-inch butcher knife. She failed but screamed, "I'll see you dead. I'll get you yet. I'll walk on your grave!" Her son says he does not understand why she so hated her father. While Vitz does note some exceptions to the pattern, he emphasises the fact that this missing ingredient of fatherhood does have a profound impact on the way a person develops and what they believe in. Vitz concludes: "Since both believers and nonbelievers in God have psychological reasons for their position ... in any debate as to the truth of the existence of God, psychology should be irrelevant". Truth, facts, and the evidence should decide that question, not personality. As this book makes clear, there is a real correlation between personal psycho-history and belief systems. Of course such childhood backgrounds are not fully determinative - people can and do change, rising above their circumstances and backgrounds. However, this book helps us to understand the passion and vehemence of some atheists, and shows us that philosophies can be as much a product of our social background as of hard reasoning.
Rating: 
Summary: Much Ado About Not Very Much
Review: Paul Vitz's *The Faith of the Fatherless* is a ship without a rudder. What is the point of this book? Is it simply to explain why some become atheists? Is it to psychologically discredit atheism the way Freud tries to discredit belief in God? Vitz is never clear.
Vitz proposes an interesting thesis; but he fails to provide any evidence in its favor and qualifies it half to death. He calls his thesis the Defective Father Hypothesis: atheism is a result of rejecting of the father or father-substitute due to absence, weakness or abusiveness. He explains this as a result of an unresolved Oedipal complex, only to later admit that the Oedipal complex is controversial without defending it. He also draws a distinction between male and female rejections of the father that admittedly relies on Carol Gilligan's work, though this time he does not acknowledge the controversy surrounding her work or its underpinnings in Kohlberg's controversial account of moral development. Also, he starts by indicating a rejection of the biological father, then expands his thesis in his "evidence" to include father-substitutes, including clergy and religious institutions. He also admits that there are other important causes of atheism, but only devotes 3 pages to them, which makes one wonder if he's really qualifying his thesis or just kidding us.
There are serious problems with his methodology, that, as a professional psychologist, he ought to recognize. The only evidence he offers for his theory consists of 1-2 page biographical sketches of some prominent atheists, contrasted with 1-2 page biographical sketches of some prominent theists. He rarely does more than quote a biographer's claim about what caused this person to be a theist or atheist, a bizarre kind of deference from a psychologist. In any case, his examples prove absolutely nothing. Examples are open to serious selection bias, and I think this has happened in this case.
The evidence Vitz needs to appeal to should be obvious to him: is there a positive statistically significant correlation between a "defective father" and atheism? This involves 2 things: are people with defective fathers more likely than not to become atheists, and are theists more likely than not to have effective fathers? Vitz is silent on what the empirical evidence has to say. The only evidence that would vindicate his thesis is never even *mentioned*, much less provided.
There may be a reason for this. We have good initial grounds for thinking his thesis is false. First, the rates of paternal absenteeism and abusive fathers is far in excess of the rate of atheism in the United States. In other countries, the reverse is true. Does Vitz really think that all Buddhists, Advaita Vendanta Hindus, Confucians and Daoists have defective fathers? (I suspect his all-too-brief mention of learning atheism from one's father is his way to try to weasel out of this blatantly false consequence of his view.)
Lastly, even if Vitz could provide evidence of correlation, he knows as well as I do that this doesn't prove much. A correlation of .5 (quite high), means that 25% of atheism can be explained by defective fathers. A more modest correlation of .2 would account for only 4%. Since most of his readers will know little or nothing about statistics, this omission borders on deception.
In the end, Vitz waffles on what his thesis is, evades massive evidence to the contrary, and fails to support his view. And sadly, even if he didn't, his thesis would be interesting, but unlikely to mean very much. Vitz's "thesis" is speculation; nothing more.
I want to end with my own undefended speculation. Vitz, on his own admission, once held atheism for shallow reasons. Because of this, he assumes that all other atheists must be similarly shallow. In the end, this book is one long ad homine argument, no different in principle from the Freudian argument he himself rejects.
Rating:
Summary: This is not psychology
Review: Psychology is the rigorous, empirical study of human thought and behavior. Vitz does not provide any systematic data to back his ideological assertions. This is not surprising, since if you research his rather sad record of publications he does not appear to have ever published any empirical data based papers on the subject of the psychology of religion. I cannot find a single work of his that appears in a peer reviewed accredited psychology journal. The psychology of religion is a major subject area in psychology and plenty of articles (many favorable to religion) are published all the time in top tier psych journals. Vitz clearly just is not interested in actually testing his ideas against data. This is understandable since none of his ideas are defensible by either logic or any remotely established psychological theory.
The main theoretical source he relys on is an intellectually dishonest twisting of Freud, whose ideas (and similarly non-empirical methods) were discredited in psychology decades ago.
This book is a perfect example of snake oil pop psych for the uninformed masses that serves only to mislead the public about real state of evidence based psychology.
Rating:
Summary: Prior reviews miss the mark
Review: The FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS (Spence Publishing, 1999, and 176 pages) by Paul C. Vitz is an informative and popular read. The only reason I bothered to review this specific title is due to what I felt was erroneous and substantive errors on behalf of some of the people who gave the book a negative review. The "a reader from London, England" comments that "Second of all, of course there is no actual evidence to suggest that every atheist had a bad father, or lacked a father." Similar comments concerning the book come from such people as: "Ed." The problem with this argument contra Vitz is that Vitz does not assume that "every atheist had a bad father, or lacked a father." Vitz argues that (contra to the Oedipus/Freudian theory) that people with a happy childhood with two both parental figures will have the choice to determine a theistic or an atheistic worldview, but that (especially) males who had either no father, an abusive father, or a weak father will have a psychological tendency to become atheists. The Vitz thesis is not "all atheists" had a father with any of the above descriptions, only the fatherless--Vitz's arguments are specified to only fatherless atheists. A man named Mr. Rogers comments that "Paul C. Vitz joins the ranks of Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) and Michael Drosnin (The Bible Code) in his attempt to use science and reason to support his religious beliefs." This comment leaves me the inference that he (Rogers) is amazingly un-well-read. THere are literally thousand upon thousand of Christian apologetic texts, ranging in fields from history to philosophy to science to (yes) psychology. Rogers continues, "The premise behind the book is that adults reject atheism as the result of being disgruntled children, but instead of offering solid evidence Vitz results instead to misrepresentations, poor logic, and ad hominem attacks in which he characterizes atheists as being arrogant and immoral. " That is NOT the premise of the book. The premise is that people reject the Christian diety due to bad or absent fathers. Concerning Vitz's use of ad hominem arguments, Vitz himself recognizes this, as he writes, "...psychological arguments are all ad hominem; that is, they address the person presenting the evidence and not the evidence himself." (pg. 145) Continuing in Rogers's erroneous review, he comments: "He then makes the enormous leap in logic that a child views his father as a god figure, therefore disliking an abusive or absent father will cause the child to become an atheist." Yet Rogers has yet to demonstrate that this is an "enormous leap in logic." Rogers: "what we find is that only a few of Vitz's atheists share any one aspect of childhood." Uh, how about that all of them had an abusive, absent, or weak father, JUST AS VITZ CONTINUALLY ENFORCED AND FOCUSED UPON? Rogers: "Does this NYU psychologist really believe that these are equal offenses to a child?" Where does Vitz state this? From my reading, it appears that Vitz is trying to demonstrate that the child's reaction to the offenses are similar, not that the offenses must be congruent in every-which-mannor. Rogers: "What's interesting is what he considers abusive. In the case of Jean Meslier, Vitz claims that his father was abusive because he encouraged him to become a priest." Vitz himself almost directly commented on this that "There is not enough information to make an obvious case for Meslier's having had an absuive father--though any father who would force a son who felt no call to the priesthood to become a priest and a celibate could justifiably be called abusive." (pg. 37). As I read Rogers's review through one more time, I found that there was too many erroneous statements for me to waste my time. Is the thesis presented by Paul Vitz substantive? That is not for me to so -I do not know- but it seems clear that the reviews's arguments against it are not.
|
