The projection theory is a piece of romantic speculation. There is no scientific evidence to support it. In fact, the historical and anthropological evidence is against it. Freud particularly assumed that all "primitive" or natural religions believed in male paternal gods, which was a wildly incorrect, culturally biased assumption.
Dr. Vitz's point is that religion and religious belief seems to be the normal social and psychological condition of human beings, and that the ideas, invented by a few radical thinkers, that religion is a mass psychological abnormality, and that diverse human societies are evolving or progressing into a superior, universal, rational, non-religious society are speculative. Atheists makes large assumptions - ideological, very nearly religious assumptions - about what it is to be human.
Dr. Vitz's responds to projection theory in several different ways. He explains it, he summarizes the evidence against it and he discusses the logical flaws. He devotes the longest section of his book to a review of the lives of various atheists and theists. He suggests that many atheists had troubled relationships with their fathers and that atheist thinkers tend to project their anger at their (absent or abusive fathers) into a psychological and philosophical attack on God. This section of the book is interesting for the biographical details, but somewhat confusing. As Dr. Vitz has written elsewhere, Freud's psychoanalytic theories have been largely discredited. Dr. Vitz's review of the relationships between atheist and theist thinkers and their fathers is, at least superficially, psychoanalytic. Since the Freudian theory has a strong hold on the public imagination, Dr. Vitz's work has value in demystifying and refuting the Freudian approach to religion. This section of the book might suggest that Dr. Vitz agrees with Freud and other projectionists who suggest that religious belief or disbelief are dictated by psychological forces. However Dr. Vitz takes care to say elsewhere that while people go through the process of examining their beliefs with their own baggage - our experiences, temperament and values - we are all free to make choices and decisions.
His discussion of the lives of leading atheist thinkers is less Freudian than Augustinian. It reflects a sensitivity to the way that feeling influence judgment. His discussion underlines the fact that philosophy is a creative and narrative pursuit, and that atheist writers bring the arrogance and narcissism of autonomous creative work into play. They may write passionately and brilliantly, but they are biased witnesses when it comes to seeing and telling the truth. They are emotionally committed their own sense of themselves, to a set of feelings based in irrational beliefs and emotional sensations. They are capable of vast acts of rationalization to maintain their sense of their own rectitude and intellectual superiority.
Article comments
1 - DrPat
It's an intriguing take on atheism, and your review gives it perhaps more weight than the psychological establishment (coming from the prevailing culture of superficial atheism in universities and tainted by the prevalence of atheist assumptions within academic culture in philosophy and the social sciences) might.
2 - L. Mulry Tetlow, Ph.D.
In his Future of an Illusion, Freud defined illusion as a belief which may or may not be true but which is believed because the person wants it to be true. That is an autistic definition which has nothing in common with the accepted meaning in psychology and psychiatry. An illusion is an erroneous perception due to the configuration of the perceptual data and the functioning of the perceptual process.* Freud then gives the exact same definition of Religion. That's how he "proves scientifically" that Religion is an illusion.
* As in: Paris in the
the spring time
3 - Jack
With atheists constsntly using logic against religion, its fascinating to see someone fight with the same tools for the other side
4 - Christopher Rose
Except that didn't happen...
5 - Leroy
IMO the author has a narrow view of atheism. There are many varieties of non-belief, simply because belief itself is so limiting.