Faith of the Fatherless

The central thesis of the book is stated explicitly when Vitz says “Therefore, in the Freudian framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father (God) and replace him with oneself… The belief that ‘God is dead’ therefore, is simply an Oedipal wish-fulfillment – the sign of seriously unresolved unconscious motivation.”

Vitz attacks this theory head on. He begins by demonstrating the relationship of modern history’s most outspoken atheists with their fathers. Many of these lost their father within the first 5 years of life, which Vitz suggests shaped their trajectory of belief. Freud himself is probably the most devastating of the stories. What is clear, though, is that Vitz “data” sample seems to point to a theme that should not be ignored. I don’t know enough about the theory nor the data sample to know if this is “enough” data.

Vitz turns his attention on the “control” group which are theists and their relationships with their father from a similar time period. In symmetry with the previous chapter, Vitz demonstrates positive male role models, most of whom were biological fathers, present in the lives of outspoken modern theists. His hope is to show the psychological impact of these relationships and how Freud’s theory falls short of an explanation of belief.

Vitz looks at qualifications and extensions in the next chapter. I was not sure of the value of this chapter, but I understand why it was necessary. His point seems to be to show that a relationship with a father has a significant impact on belief. I appreciate his care with his findings, but this chapter left me more confused than helped.

Vitz offers a personal account of this journey. Vitz himself, I think, shows why this book is so important to him. I appreciate his perspective on the culture of academia: “Another major reason for my becoming 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 professors in graduate school. As a graduate student, I was thoroughly socialized by the specific “culture” of academic research in psychology. My professors at Stanford University… united in two things: their intense career abitions and their rejection of religion. Just as I had learned how to dress like a college student by putting on the right clothes, I learned to think like a proper psychologist by putting on the right – that is, atheistic – ideas and attitudes. I wanted as few impediments to my professional career as it was possible to arrange.”

The final chapter is perhaps the most helpful. Vitze says that there are many factors contributing to beliefs, particularly with atheism. At the end of the day, he says, is that in the debate about the existence of God, psychology should be irrelevant. I appreciate his perspective in writing this book yet coming to this conclusion – not letting his own work become too important for its own good. This is a sober and important work, but contributes little to the actual conversation about whether there is a god or not. What it does, however, is demonstrate that the question cannot be dismissed as mere psychology.

I am not sure how I can use this book. I don’t run into many people who believe that God is a projection of our own minds and I certainly give little credence to the theory in my own heart. I can perhaps think of three important ways this book could be useful in my current contexts. One, working with grad students, I run into those who are in psychology and this could perhaps be a great resource for them as they face Freudian thinkers. My wife, being a Doctor in Psychology would likely benefit from having such a book on her shelf as well.

Another use is for those in my congregation who might fall into this type of thinking. It could serve as a reference for those who are struggling in this type of thinking or perhaps persuaded by those who do. I could pull some quotes and references to show that psychology ought not persuade our arguments for God.

Probably the most important, though, is to think through these issues in ministry and respond accordingly. Children who lose their fathers at an early age need care and a positive male role model. As a result, I can try to coordinate men to play that role in the life of the children. When I minister to particular people, I can keep these finding/theories in the back of my mind to provide a deeper care for the people I serve and reach out to.