Rational Faith
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
So the men that controlled the sword decided they needed a control system? In that control they also suggested that people listen to the ones who controlled the sword that was allowed to be the 'cure' of being a 'evil person' when the cross and other forms were already in place. (Romans:13)
Concerning his conversion experience, Dr. Collins stated:
"I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me,' Collins said. 'And yet at the same time, I could not turn away. I had to keep turning those pages. I had to keep trying to understand this. I had to see where it led." NIH Director Francis S. Collins: Faith a Conclusion Arrived at Through Rational Thought
Concerning the psychology of atheism, Dr. Vitz remarked:
"In his essay on Leonardo da Vinci, Freud ... makes the simple easily understandable claim that once a child or youth is disappointed in and loses his or her respect for their earthly father, then belief in their heavenly Father becomes impossible. There are, of course, many ways that a father can lose his authority and seriously disappoint a child. Some of these ways for which clinical evidence is given:
1. He can be present but obviously weak, cowardly, and unworthy of respect- even if otherwise pleasant or 'nice.'
2. He can be present but physically, sexually, or psychologically abusive.
3. He can be absent through death or by abandoning or leaving the family."
The Psychology of Atheism
Dr. Vitz concluded:
"Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty, the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding and compassion." The Psychology of Atheism
I wasn't there so I don't know if he said that or not but it makes sense that when people get together and all jump up and down and shout, we all believe it is so, so it must be so, you have religion. Spirituality is a personal matter. It doesn't require books, it requires getting your ego out of the way so you can hear the Source talking to you. What I hear when people talk about Christianity is the ego trying to save its own butt through following someone else's take on the matter. Spirit is trying to talk truth to you but people are too busy trying to justify themselves through words in an ancient book that they don't really understand because they weren't there and are not present in the moment, because if they were they would get the truth from spirit, not books.
Don't know Collins, but I would guess that he missed the point like all the rest of the believers. Some have belief in gods and others have faith in Life, our greatest teacher.
“Among all my patients ... over thirty five ... there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he lost (it)...and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook. This of course has nothing whatever to do with a particular creed or membership of a church. “ Carl Jung
I started my first book with this quote but I think Jung used the wrong terminology. I believe he meant spiritual outlook.
Vitz was a condescending twit. A person does not have to be wounded by authority to become an atheist. Vitz is looking at atheists as lesser people because they do not believe as he does, so they must be deficient. He is not talking about understanding or compassion, he is is talking about pity and you can only pity a person if you consider yourself above them, as in superior, much like how born againers pity non-born againers. You think you come from a superior belief system and that is what motivates you to preach your nonsense.
Last edited:
Dr. Vitz's personal testimony, Cliffy:
"To begin a critique of this assumption, I start with my own case history. As some of you know, after a rather weak, wishy-washy Christian upbringing, I became an atheist in college in the 1950s and remained so throughout graduate school and my first years as a young experimental psychologist on the faculty at New York University. That is, I am an adult convert or, more technically, a reconvert to Christianity who came back to the faith, much to his surprise, in my late thirties in the very secular environment of academic psychology in New York City. I am not going into this to bore you with parts of my life story, but to note that through reflection on my own experience it is now clear to me that my reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist-skeptic from about age 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual or moral integrity. Furthermore, I am convinced that my motives were, and still are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social scientists. The major factors involved in my becoming an atheist, although I wasn't really aware of them at the time were as follows. General socialization. An important influence on me in my youth was a significant social unease. I was somewhat embarrassed to be from the Midwest, for it seemed terribly dull, narrow, and provincial. There was certainly nothing romantic or impressive about being from Cincinnati, Ohio and from a vague mixed German-English-Swiss background. Terribly middle class. Further, besides escape from a dull, and according to me unworthy, socially embarrassing past, I wanted to take part in, in fact to be comfortable in, the new, exciting, even glamorous, secular world into which I was moving ... This kind of socialization pressure has pushed many away from belief in God and all that this belief is associated with for them. I remember a small seminar in graduate school where almost every member there at some time expressed this kind of embarrassment and response to the pressures of socialization into "modern life." One student was trying to escape his Southern Baptist background, another a small town Mormon environment, a third was trying to get out of a very Jewish Brooklyn ghetto, and the fourth was me. Specific socialization. Another major reason for my wanting to become an atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was thoroughly socialized by the specific 'culture' of academic research psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two things - their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of religion. As the psalmist says, '. . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God' (Psalm 10:3-4). In this environment, just as I had learned how to dress like a college student by putting on the right clothes, I also learned to 'think' like a proper psychologist by putting on the right, that is atheistic-ideas and attitudes. Personal convenience. Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time. Without going into details it is not hard to imagine the sexual pleasures that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer. And then I also knew it would cost me time and some money. There would be church services, church groups, time for prayer and scripture reading, time spent helping others. I was already too busy. Obviously, becoming religious would be a real inconvenience ... 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." The Psychology of Atheism
Now I'm convinced he is a twit.
As I have said, I have a very strong faith. I too was once an atheist in my youth, but I came to realize that there was far more to life and reality than pure happenstance. This is why I set off on my journey of discovery, my spiritual journey. I am where I am today because I kept an open mind and heart. I listen to the still small voice inside (spirit) and I know that spiritual growth is an endless process. I am always in a state of wonder and amazement at the world and the Universe. And I believe that atheists too are on a spiritual journey because they too are appreciative of the wonder and beauty of Life and the Universe.
Last edited:
Thanks for your testimony, Cliffy. I counted the designation "I" thirteen times in four lines of text. Here's how it reads - "I have said; I too was; I came to realize; I set off; I am; I am; I kept; I listen; I know; I am; I believe." As Christ is the epitome of other-centeredness, how has Jesus impacted your journey?
He was a great teacher, like many others. I like a lot of what he had to say (even if he didn't really exist). I like the Buddha too and for all I know he was a mythical being too.
And all anyone can talk about is themselves. You can think you are talking about Jesus, but in the end, it is all about what you think and believe. I learned a long time ago that what I know is true is just an opinion to someone else. That is what any of us has to offer the world, an opinion. It is a matter of integrity to speak our truth but it is only our truth, not the only truth. It really doesn't matter what you believe in or don't believe in because it is only relevant to your life. Just because you belong to a group who believes the same as you doesn't mean it is relevant or good for everyone. For some reason I keep going back to the Monkey Tribe in Jungle Book by Kipling. We all say it is true so it must be true. Kipling was a wise guy.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
We (Christians) by no means believe to be superior, Cliffy.
Cliffy has a book!!!!??????
"I started my first book with this quote but I think Jung used the wrong terminology."
Alright Cliffy, title please. I'm reading Collins book now. Excellent. He is a fine writer, very fluid. I think all would enjoy his book - believers, atheists, agnostics etc.
Cliffy has 6 books. The first was The Freedom of Responsibility, a sillyphosical tome on spirituality. And my novel is titled "But Now I See" - catchy, eh? The story of a guy who has a revelation about what we call reality and his journey to discover what is behind the veil of lies that covers our eyes so we are blind to the truth of who and what we are.
You can find three of my books here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?...iff+Woffenden&x=12&y=6&sitesearch=lulu.com&q=
Last edited:
Seemingly, however, for hypotheses sake, it is acceptable logic.
Can disbelief based upon a lack of evidence be due to psychology? Yes, but every decision has a psych factor.
"One man may start with so many barriers that even after years of slowly choosing to move toward God he may still not be there. Some may die before they reach belief. We assume they will be judged-like all of us- on how far they traveled toward God and how well they loved others-on how well they did with what they had. Likewise, another man without psychological difficulties at all is still free to reject God, and no doubt many do. Thus, although the ultimate issue is one of the will and our sinful nature, it is still possible to investigate those psychological factors that predispose one to unbelief, that make the road to belief in God especially long and hard." So, what is the more important trait of this issue, belief in this god or goodness? That is one of my biggest issues with this philosophy. Goodnes s would be the higher priority, IMO, if one presumes an objective and modest (unegotistical ) viewpoint.
I'd suggest there's more pressure to adopt a faith than not to adopt one but it is becoming less so, I think.
The wish-fulfillment argument may seem weak but I still think it is valid for some people. Same for the protectionist view of needing a father figure but less weak an arguement.
As far as the Oedipal context for belief goes, the aggressive religions seem to accent it from an early age. Kinda like "believe and behave or you're toast" sort of idea.
Amd lastly, the "forced into atheism" idea because of hatred for the father is also pretty weak but not invalid.
Left out is the objective, rational motivation for atheism; the one that favors evidence and probabilities for disbelief.
Why would it? Not all cycles are related.
I disagree, Cliffy. Many in this particular thread have cited other authorities or role models in their posts. You reference Tom Harpur. JLM mentions Chris Hatfield and Chuck Yeager. DB cites A. B. Kuhn. Dex quotes Christopher Hitchens and by default, Richard Dawkins. And I introduced Francis Collins and Paul Vitz and by default, Jesus Christ as these men are both Christians.
To enjoy the life one has, obviously.
One can accept the sh|ttiness and still enjoy life.
Is there a universal definition of "goodness", LG? Is an objective, modest viewpoint possible?
Any thoughts, LG?
Yes, it is.
Nope. There's no evidence suggesting any intelligence in the design of the universe. Intelligent design is an hypothesis, not a theory.
There's no evidence for it, so no. There's evidence suggesting the creation of life on this planet started when meteorites brought RNA and other acids, proteins, and other essentials for starting life but nothing suggesting that some sort of magic or mystical quality did it.
So therefore it can be dismissed? I think it's a valid argument against this claim of a loving god.
Such as?
"To support the validity of this approach, I will conclude by providing case history material from the lives of prominent atheists, for it was in reading the biographies of atheists that this hypothesis first struck me.
We begin with Sigmund Freud's relationship to his father. That Freud's father, Jacob, was a deep disappointment or worse is generally agreed to by his biographers. Specifically, his father was a weak man unable to financially provide for his family. Instead money for support seems to have been provided by his wife's family and others. Furthermore, Freud's father was passive in response to anti-Semitism. Freud recounts an episode told to him by his father in which Jacob allowed an anti-Semite to call him a dirty Jew and to knock his hat off. Young Sigmund, on hearing the story, was mortified at his father's failure to respond, at his weakness. Sigmund Freud was a complex and in many respects ambiguous man, but all agree that he was a courageous fighter and that he greatly admired courage in others. Sigmund, as a young man, several times stood up physically against anti Semitism and, of course, he was one of the greatest of intellectual fighters. Jacob's actions as a defective father, however, probably go still deeper. Specifically, in two of his letters as an adult, Freud writes that his father was a sexual pervert and that Jacob's own children suffered from this. There are also other possible moral disasters that I have not bothered to note. The connection of Jacob to God and religion was also present for his son. Jacob was involved in a kind of reform Judaism when Freud was a child, the two of them spent hours reading the Bible together, and later Jacob became increasingly involved in reading the Talmud and in discussing Jewish scripture. In short, this weak, rather passive 'nice guy,' this schlemiel, was clearly connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of courage and quite possibly to sexual perversion and other weaknesses very painful to young Sigmund.
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. He assimilated for convenience. In doing this Marx's father broke an old family tradition. He was the first in his family who did not become a rabbi; indeed, Karl Marx came from a long line of rabbis on both sides of his family.
Ludwig Feuerbach's father did something that very easily could have deeply hurt his son. When Feuerbach was about 13, his father left his family and openly took up living with another woman in a different town. This was in Germany in the early 1800s and such a public rejection would have been a scandal and deeply rejecting to young Ludwig and, of course, to his mother and the other children.
Let us jump 100 years or so and look at the life of one of America's best known atheists - Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Here I will quote from her son's recent book on what life was like in his family when he was a child. The book opens when he is 8 years old: 'We rarely did anything together as a family. Hatred between my grandfather and mother barred such wholesome scenes.' He writes that he really didn't know why his mother hated her father so much but hate him she did, for the opening chapter records a very ugly fight in which she attempts to kill her father with a 10-inch butcher knife. Madalyn failed but screamed, 'I'll see you dead. I'll get you yet. I'll walk on your grave!' Whatever the cause of O'Hair's intense hatred of her father, it is clear from this book that it was deep and that it went back into her childhood and at least psychological and possibly physical abuse is a plausible cause.
Besides abuse, rejection, or cowardice, one way in which a father can be seriously defective is simply by not being there. Many children, of course, interpret death of their father as a kind of betrayal or an act of desertion. In this respect it is remarkable that the pattern of a dead father is so common in the lives of many prominent atheists. Baron d'Holbach (born Paul Henri Thiry), the French rationalist and probably the first public atheist, is apparently an orphan by the age of 13 and living with his uncle. Bertrand Russell's father died when young Bertrand was 4-years-old; Nietzsche was the same age as Russell when he lost his father; Sartre's father died before Sartre was born and Camus was a year old when he lost his father.
Obviously, much more evidence needs to be obtained on the 'defective father' hypothesis. But the information already available is substantial; it is unlikely to be an accident. The psychology of how a dead or nonexistent father could lay an emotional base for atheism might not seem clear at first glance. But, after all, if one's own father is absent or so weak as to die, or so untrustworthy as to desert, then it is not hard to place the same attribute on your heavenly Father.
Finally, there is also the early personal experience of suffering, of death, of evil, sometimes combined with anger at God for allowing it to happen. Any early anger at God for the loss of a father and the subsequent suffering is still another and different psychology of unbelief, but one closely related to that of the defective father. Some of this psychology is captured in Russell Baker's recent autobiography. Russell Baker is the well-known journalist and humorous writer for the New York Times. His father was taken to the hospital and died there suddenly when young Russell was five. Baker wept and sorrowed and spoke to the family housekeeper, Bessie: For the first time I thought seriously about God. Between sobs I told Bessie that if God could do things like this to people, then God was hateful and I had no more use for Him. Bessie told me about the peace of Heaven and the joy of being among the angels and the happiness of my father who was already there. The argument failed to quiet my rage. 'God loves us all just like His own children,' Bessie said. 'If God loves me, why did He make my father die?' Bessie said that I would understand someday, but she was only partly right. That afternoon, though I couldn't have phrased it this way then, I decided that God was a lot less interested in people than anybody in Morrisonville was willing to admit. That day I decided that God was not entirely to be trusted.After that I never cried again with any real conviction, nor expected much of anyone's God except indifference, nor loved deeply without fear that it would cost me dearly in pain. At the age of five I had become a skeptic."The Psychology of Atheism
Last edited:
You mean that if you'd never heard of any of this, you'd still be imbued with faith or this wishful thinking that tells you there is life after death and stuff? And if the same logic applied to me, I'd have the same installed in me. But it makes more sense that we learn this stuff as we grow.
But it did spread. What spread it, though, was communication through people talking and reading, not some natural inborn sense.
I can accept a possibility, however improbable it all is, but it's all a humongous "if".
"The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace." (Romans 8:6 NIV)
"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." (Romans 12:2a NIV)
"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus..." (Philippians 2:5 NIV)
"Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." (Colossians 3:2 NIV)
"Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming." (1 Peter 1:13 NIV)
Oh, you want me to site others whose views parallel mine or who embody a spiritual outlook. I could do that, like Allan Watts, the Dalai Lama, Mark Twain, Tom Robbins, Jane Roberts, Evelin Eaton. Or I could make it more personal, like people I've known that influenced my journey, like Albert (Buffalo Child) Lightning, Noweta, Frank Supernault, Evelin Eaton, Red Cloud, etc.
The thing is, my journey and what I have learned from it does involve many people but in the end it it had far more to do with what I made of what has happened in my life.
Apparently they do or else this loving god should intervene, right?
There are some that would be preventable by humans and, if they actually existed, deities.
In the case of diseases not created by humans? Deities. Same for fires.
But if you had a child who burned to death or even got burned, even if it was the child's fault, would you not have prevented it if you could? I would.
Sure. I first saw it closeup in my sister. She was simply a good person because she refused to cause harm because in doing so, she felt bad. Our kids felt the same way. I find this phenomenon to be the basis upon which societies were initially founded. It's far more beneficial than other foundations. And outside of an occasional deficiency in brain function, people have to learn to behave antisocially. IMO, goodness is innate.
Yep. Like I said, valid. I still think it's weak simply because people's brains cause them to change. I'm sure there are those that have had good fathers and became atheists (like me, EG). There are all kinds of people.