Sathfilms

Somewhere down below in bold is a comment that I really liked on the post “Oedipal Atheists” found on the Religious Write blog. The post looked at a new study:

Oxford University researchers will carry out a £2 million ($4.3 million) study into why people believe in God. The three-year study by anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics will consider whether belief in a divine being is an inherent part of human nature.

Project director Roger Trigg, acting head of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion, says anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world. “One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.”

The news of this study was seemingly associated with another observation:

Recently I also came across New York University emeritus professor of psychology Paul Vitz’s arguments that – contra Freud – it may not be religious belief that is a neurosis but atheism.

Barney goes on to write…

Vitz says there is good reason to give only limited acceptance to Freud’s Oedipal theory. Instead, he works out a psychology of atheism based on the malign influence of the defective father.

Anyway, the post managed to spark yet another large collision of rants from atheists and the religious alike trying to talk “sense” into each other. I’m surprised Barney actually took time to reply to many of the 1000+ comments on his post, but I guess that’s his job.

Here’s the one that I accidentally stumbled upon by a Vicky K, it was after a whole bunch of other comments:

I am compelled to respond to some of your questions Barney as this is a topic that interests me greatly, mostly because of how much people attach their own ego to the question of whether or not God exists.

There is nothing that fascinates me more than the arrogance that convinces people of the omniscience of their own perspective.

I think I am equally as appalled by the atheist who clings to his/ her concept of “reality” and incorruptible and infallible reason, as I am by the fundamentalist religious right who cling to their “faith” and accept no argument.

Both tend to display a, shall we call it almost adolescent, need to be “right”. And both will quite often paint people of different persuasions in unflattering lights by creating straw men for themselves to knock down.

How much easy it is to knock down an immature, irrational person clinging desperately to an oedipal desire for a god-being, than one in which spirituality has evolved in a complex and carefully considered way. Or a person in whom spirituality and reason reside comfortably side-by-side.

And so we get these false discourses of irrationality versus rationality; of immaturity versus maturity and discussions of neuroses and wish-fullfilments.

Its all nonsense of course. The human psyche is far more complicated than that and it shows a remarkable lack of scientific curiosity to want to paint things so black and white.

I predict that the Oxford study might reveal that people, whether atheist or spiritual, may experience the world in different ways, but use much the same mechanical workings when it comes to how the brain works and the ins and outs of the human mind. I think this idea of one group of people having ownership over maturity of thought and another being simply the sum of their neuroses is a ridiculous fallacy, created only to serve those whom it flatters.

Having not read Vitz’s entire position, I cannot speak to it directly, but I will say that I have often noted with amusement the emotional foundation of the arguments of my most self-professed “rational” friends. The fact that they do not see this in themselves, or somehow believe that like the Vulcans of Star Trek, they have risen above their own natures, always strikes me as surprising. Is it a lack of introspection? Something else?

I choose to move through the world in an experiential rather than rational way. The difference between my position and that of the atheist is simply the lense through which I view the world. You will never hear me say, however, that an alternative lense is invalid. Nor do I waste my time trying to figure out what failure of their natures would send them on such a path. It seems to me as simple as saying we are different people, and the things that connect us far overwhelm these silly barriers we create between ourselves. I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my truth needs to be true for anyone but myself.

Sorry for the rambling post.

Here’s to that.

For me, I don’t particularly have time for Vitz’s comments. Perhaps I’m stating the obvious but I always thought that neurotic psychological barriers are a factor in everyone’s lives including their belief system and their behavior in and interpretation of the boundaries that they set for themselves, religious or not. Who cares what the mind “needs” and why does it matter if someone somewhere claims that the default position is being a turkey or a dolphin? Isn’t psychological neurosis present in everyone in some form? I’m sure this theory would somehow apply to some, maybe many people; but I don’t think it will help people become transparent to themselves in an attempt to find answers.

Barney says:

I am disposed to like Vitz’s theory to the extent that I have always felt there are subconscious and not strictly rational reasons (alongside rational ones) why people do or don’t believe. There’s some merit to the argument that if we confine ourselves to purely rational considerations, eliminating all others, the only acceptable position is agnosticism. But it’s a very human phenomenon to rationalise what we want to believe, one way or another.

I don’t disagree with Barney. At the same time I don’t feel that Vitz and/or suggestions regarding this study talk about anything truly new, apart from creating another (perhaps new) unhealthy polarized generalization about a default position in human nature and beliefs. I don’t see much usefulness in this intersection of psychology and religion or atheism. Honest introspection is something that’s been talked about so much over the years that it’s become very cliched – a sort of psychoanalysis of oneself – and it’s something that many people strive for but fail. It would be amazing and fascinating to be able to know why someone really believes in God and why another doesn’t, but I’m not even sure if it’s possible to understand why someone believes anything beyond a superficial level entrenched in many assumptions. I’d be interested to see how they find people to participate in their 2 million pound study.