Uskovaiset yleensä aivopesty jo hyvin nuorena. Jo kerran opittua asiaa on hyvin vaikea korjata myöhemmin, vaikka kyseessä olisi miten typerä asia tahansa (myös usko jumalaan). Tässä katkelma aivojen toiminnasta.
"Ihmisaivot eivät ole kovinkaan älykkäitä. Jo aiemmin kerroin, että muistamisprosessikin on hyvin konstruktiivinen ja summittainen. Lisäksi "luomakunnan kruunun" loogiset päättelykyvyt ovat varsin vialliset. Ensinnäkin ihmisaivoja riivaa arkipsykologiankin nimellä kulkeva intuitiivisuus - aivot kehittävät käsityksiä asioista, joista niillä ei ole tietoa, kirjaimellisesti tyhjästä. Lisäksi ongelmana on uskomusten pysyvyys. Kun jokin asia on jollain tavalla noteerattu (siis havaittu), tämä käsitys tallentuu aivoihin - aina. Virheellisten käsitysten muuttaminen jälkikäteen on todella työlästä. Ensivaikutelmat pysyvät pitkään.
Aivot pyrkivät myös uskottelemaan itselleen olevansa oikeassa (vahvistus/illuusioefekti). Kun aivot ovat jotain mieltä jostain asiasta, ne aktiivisesti pyrkivät löytämään käsitykselleen vahvistusta, mutta välttävät ristiriitaisten asioiden havainnointia."
"Ihmisaivot eivät ole kovinkaan älykkäitä. Jo aiemmin kerroin, että muistamisprosessikin on hyvin konstruktiivinen ja summittainen. Lisäksi "luomakunnan kruunun" loogiset päättelykyvyt ovat varsin vialliset. Ensinnäkin ihmisaivoja riivaa arkipsykologiankin nimellä kulkeva intuitiivisuus - aivot kehittävät käsityksiä asioista, joista niillä ei ole tietoa, kirjaimellisesti tyhjästä. Lisäksi ongelmana on uskomusten pysyvyys. Kun jokin asia on jollain tavalla noteerattu (siis havaittu), tämä käsitys tallentuu aivoihin - aina. Virheellisten käsitysten muuttaminen jälkikäteen on todella työlästä. Ensivaikutelmat pysyvät pitkään.
Aivot pyrkivät myös uskottelemaan itselleen olevansa oikeassa (vahvistus/illuusioefekti). Kun aivot ovat jotain mieltä jostain asiasta, ne aktiivisesti pyrkivät löytämään käsitykselleen vahvistusta, mutta välttävät ristiriitaisten asioiden havainnointia."
Vastaukset 35
Vanhimmat
eli sinä kerrot että "sinusta" usko Jumalaan on typerää, voisitko kertoa miksi, minun mielestäni on sulaa hulluutta sanoa ettei Jumalaa ole!
"minusta" on täysi mahdottomuus että ihminen olisi kehittynyt tälläiseksi, pelkästään evoluution kautta, se on mahdottomuus!
ja jos evo-teoria, pyyhitään pois , mitä jää jäljelle, ?
Miljoonat uskovat että Kim Jong-ili on se ainoa ja oikea jumala. Todisteita ei vaan ole. Sama koskee sitä sinun jumalaasi, yhtään aitoa todistetta ei vaan ole, Kaikki on vain mielikuvitustasi.
kovin kovin lapselliselta.
Mutta meitähän on joka junaan.
,
Evo-teorialle on kuitenkin huomattavasti enemmän todisteita kuin jumalan olemassaololle. Jos oletetaan, että evoluutiota ei olekaan tapahtunut, niin millä perustelet sen että juuri se jumala, johon Sinä uskot on se oikea?
Evo-teorialle on kuitenkin huomattavasti enemmän todisteita kuin jumalan olemassaololle. Jos oletetaan, että evoluutiota ei olekaan tapahtunut, niin millä perustelet sen että juuri se jumala, johon Sinä uskot on se oikea?
Evo-teorialle on kuitenkin huomattavasti enemmän todisteita kuin jumalan olemassaololle. Jos oletetaan, että evoluutiota ei olekaan tapahtunut, niin millä perustelet sen että juuri se jumala, johon Sinä uskot on se oikea?
Tuli näköjään jostain syystä useampaan kertaan.
Evoluutioteoria ja Jumala eivät sulje toisiaan pois.
Entä jos kaikki jumalat ovat sama Jumala, joka vain nähdään eri tavoin?
>"Todisteita ei vaan ole. Sama koskee sitä sinun jumalaasi, yhtään aitoa todistetta ei vaan ole, Kaikki on vain mielikuvitustasi. "
ehkä et näe sellaisia todisteita, joita haluaisit?
minusta koko luomakunta huutaa Jumalan puolesta. Todistus on niin ilmeinen ja käsinkosketeltava, ettet kai sitä osaa laskea mukaan.
minun mielikuvitukseni ei yllä jumalallisiin mittasuhteisiin. minun mielikuvitukseni ei yllä vaikuttamaan ympäristööni, ihmisiin, asioihin. Minun mielikuvitukseni ei pysty luomaan todentuntuisia kokemuksia Jumalasta, eikä se saisi minussa todellista muutosta aikaan.
minun mielestäni ei ole millään tavalla perustellumpaa uskoa että vain kaikki mikä näkyy, on olemassa ja että kaikki mikä on olemassa on sattuman tulosta, ilmestynyt tyhjästä ja itsestään muokkautunut kaikkeen elämän ja luonnon rikkauteen, kauneuteen ja monimuotoisuuteen.
>"Todisteita ei vaan ole. Sama koskee sitä sinun jumalaasi, yhtään aitoa todistetta ei vaan ole, Kaikki on vain mielikuvitustasi. "
ehkä et näe sellaisia todisteita, joita haluaisit?
minusta koko luomakunta huutaa Jumalan puolesta. Todistus on niin ilmeinen ja käsinkosketeltava, ettet kai sitä osaa laskea mukaan.
minun mielikuvitukseni ei yllä jumalallisiin mittasuhteisiin. minun mielikuvitukseni ei yllä vaikuttamaan ympäristööni, ihmisiin, asioihin. Minun mielikuvitukseni ei pysty luomaan todentuntuisia kokemuksia Jumalasta, eikä se saisi minussa todellista muutosta aikaan.
minun mielestäni ei ole millään tavalla perustellumpaa uskoa että vain kaikki mikä näkyy, on olemassa ja että kaikki mikä on olemassa on sattuman tulosta, ilmestynyt tyhjästä ja itsestään muokkautunut kaikkeen elämän ja luonnon rikkauteen, kauneuteen ja monimuotoisuuteen.
>"Todisteita ei vaan ole. Sama koskee sitä sinun jumalaasi, yhtään aitoa todistetta ei vaan ole, Kaikki on vain mielikuvitustasi. "
ehkä et näe sellaisia todisteita, joita haluaisit?
minusta koko luomakunta huutaa Jumalan puolesta. Todistus on niin ilmeinen ja käsinkosketeltava, ettet kai sitä osaa laskea mukaan.
minun mielikuvitukseni ei yllä jumalallisiin mittasuhteisiin. minun mielikuvitukseni ei yllä vaikuttamaan ympäristööni, ihmisiin, asioihin. Minun mielikuvitukseni ei pysty luomaan todentuntuisia kokemuksia Jumalasta, eikä se saisi minussa todellista muutosta aikaan.
minun mielestäni ei ole millään tavalla perustellumpaa uskoa että vain kaikki mikä näkyy, on olemassa ja että kaikki mikä on olemassa on sattuman tulosta, ilmestynyt tyhjästä ja itsestään muokkautunut kaikkeen elämän ja luonnon rikkauteen, kauneuteen ja monimuotoisuuteen.
vasta viimeinen viesteistä ilmoitettiin onnistuneesti lisätyksi.
Yksikään kristitty ei ole osannut todistaa Jumalan olemassaoloa siten, etteikö tämä todistus olisi myöntänyt mille tahansa muulle jumalalle oikeuden olemassaoloon. Sinun ympäripyöreä todistuksesi "minusta koko luomakunta huutaa Jumalan puolesta" vaatii ensiksi kääntämistä selkokielelle, jotta sitä voisi lähteä analysoimaan. Tekisitkö tämän?
Väitit, ettei mielikuvituksesi pysty luomaan todentuntuisia kokemuksia Jumalasta, mikä on itsekäs valhe. Hullujen huoneet ovat täynnä ihmisiä, jotka väittävät nähneensä ja kokeneensa yhtä sun toista. He eivät tarkoituksella valehtele. He todella uskovat nähneensä pinkin norsun pilven päällä, ufon laskeutuneen maan päälle. Sinut minä luettelen perustellusti yhtä lailla "hulluksi".
Niin, ja kuka (ateistiko muka) uskoo VAIN siihen, mikä näkyy eli on näköaistin avulla havaittavissa? En usko näin tyhmiä ihmisiä olevan edes olemassa. Kukapa nyt ei tuuleen uskoisi.
>"Tekisitkö tämän? "
kuten sanoin, on vastaus liian lähellä, liian todellinen, että laskisit sen todisteeksi.
enemmän kuin totuuden löytämistä taidat kaivata väittelyä. Olen pahoillani, jos streotypiat hämäävät minua, mutta en ole kiinnostunut väittelemään kanssasi todisteista. se ei johda mihinkään, koska kumpikaan meistä ei ole täällä muuttaakseen mielipiteitään. oletan myös että käsittelet todisteita, oman, täydellisen tietämyksesi valossa. Tämä aiheuttaa välitöntä kieroumaa lopputulokseen.
Jos osaisit olla objektiivinen, ennakkoluuloton ja rehellinen, silloin keskustelussa olisi järkeä.
niin ja miksipä haaskaisit aikaasi jutustelemalla hullujen kanssa?
>"Väitit, ettei mielikuvituksesi pysty luomaan todentuntuisia kokemuksia Jumalasta, mikä on itsekäs valhe. "
Pystyykö sinun mielikuvituksesi luomaan todentuntuisia kokemuksia?
>"Niin, ja kuka (ateistiko muka) uskoo VAIN siihen, mikä näkyy eli on näköaistin avulla havaittavissa? "
Itse en rajannut tarkastelua näköaistinvaraisiin havaintoihin, mutta laajennetaan sitten ahdasta käsitystämme... rajoittuuko olemassa olevat asiat fysiologisesti todennettaviin asioihin? tai materiaan? onhan tuuli selkeästi ilman liikettä.
ennakkoluulosi(kenties epävarmuutesi ja pelkosi) kompastuttivat sinut olettamaan että esittämäni ajatus oli pelkkä sanallinen vedätys.
""ehkä et näe sellaisia todisteita, joita haluaisit?""
Voiko olla typerämpää. Näen jus ne todisteet mitä pystyn havaitsemaan ja aistimaan. Sekin ainoa havainto jumalastasi on vain mielikuvituksen tuottamaa harhaa. Et voi käsittää todellisuutta, koska mielikuvituksesi tuottaa näitä harhakäsityksiä.
voit sulkea minut ymmärryksesi ulkopuolelle leimaamalla ajatukseni hulluudeksi ja kokemukseni mielikuvitukseksi, ihan miten haluat.
minä olen löytänyt jotain aitoa, onko se sinusta liian uskomatonta ollakseen totta?
että olet siinä, missä minä n. 30 vuotta sitten: rautainen materialisti, joka selitti kaikki asiat aineen kehityksen ja dialektiikan perustalta. Ja mihin olen päätynyt? Tänä päivänä minulle riittää yksinkertainen usko, vaikka olenkin kahlannut tässä välissä kaiken maailman kirjat parpsykologian, rajatiedon, muiden uskontojen jne alueelta. Se kehitys nääs, jos ei jää polkemaan materian suossa paikallaan. Täytyy vain nostaa itse kriittisiä kysymyksiä materialistiselle maailmankatsomukselle ja huomaa, etteihän se olekaan niin näppärä vastaus olemassaolon perimmäisiin kysymyksiin, kuin on luullut.
No kirkkouskovaiselle riittää sokea uskonsa ja hyvä niin, jos se kantaa. Minun piti kulkea kaiken maailman ryteiköt, ennen kuin uskoin, mutta uskallan väittää, että se usko onkin sitten vankalla pohjalla. Ajattelua vain Mirka, kyllä se siitä. Täytyy vain muistaa, että kun kaikki perustuu aineen liikunnan lakeihin, niin aine sinänsä ei voi luoda lakeja itselleen ja käyttäytymiselleen. Ettäkö olisi koonnut itsensä pienen pieneksi pisteeksi maailmankaikkeudessa, räjäyttänyt itsensä tilaan ja alkanut sitten kehittää itseään luomiensa lainalaisuuksien pohjalta? Ei tunnu uskottavalta. Ja kuitenkin on niin, että ilman lakeja maailmankaikkeus olisi kaaos.
Sä varmaan uskot noihin hokkuspokkus ja tyhjistä luomisiin. Dinotkin ovat vaan hokkuspokkus hämäystä. Miksi kukaan ei ole pystynyt todistamaan jumalansa aitoutta?
PS. On jo todistettu ettei rukoukset toimi. Tiede pystyy todistamaan, miksi sinä uskot höpöhöpö jumalaan.
uskosi, minä pidän omani.
entistäkin lapsellisemmalta.
Kuulostaa aivan siltä kuin puhuttaisiin Microsoftin tuotteista...
Mutta se mitä ihminen luo, on luonnollisesti ihmisen kuva...
Voi harmi kun tuo sinun teoriasi ei aivan toimi. Kun eivät kaikki uskovaiset ole tulleet uskoon lapsena, ja kaikki ei ole niin tyhmiä, että heidät voitaisiin aivopestä tuosta noin vaan. Yhtälailla voisi sitten olla niin, että ne hönöt onkin niitä, jotka on aivopesty luulemaan, ettei Jumalaa ole. Niin, miksi et voisi yhtä hyvin hyväksyä sitä, että sinunkin aivoissasi on vikaa? Yhtälailla siis sinä voit olla väärässä, kuin kuka tahansa muukin.
Tiede ei ole pystynyt todistamaan, ettei Jumalaa ole. Aivoilla on toki oma fysiologiansa, minkä avulla ne muodostavat kuvia asioista, mutta se ei tarkoita sitä, etteikö sitä asiaa, mistä kuva muodostetaan, olisi olemassa.
Tuolla yhdessä viestissä väitit jotain, että uskominen tarkoittaa sitä, että "dinosaurukset ovat hokkuspokkus harhaa" tms? En ymmärrä mitä tuolla oikein tarkoitit.
Sinä olet aika kapeakatseinen ja ja suvaitsematon ihminen, kun noin haukut niitä joilla on eri elämänkatsomus kuin sinulla. Itselleni ei tulisi mieleenikään haukkua ateisteja tai muslimeja tai mitä vaan, voin toki keskustella heidän kanssaan näkemyksistään, mutta miksi kyseenalaistaisin niiden paikkansapitävyyden? Enhän minä eikä kukaan muukaan voi niitä todeksi osoittaa, joten on todella lapsellista alkaa toisen maailmankuvaa pilkkaamaan typeräksi ja harhaksi jne.
No täällä ehkä niin voi vielä tehdä, mutta todellakin toivon, että et natsien tavoin tuolla oikeassa maailmassa pilkkaa toisia ja sorra ja vainoa heitä uskonsa takia.
Totuus on kuitenkin se, että erittäin suuri osa uskovista on kasvatettu uskoonsa. Jos kaikki olisivat tehneet oman valintansa, olisi vähintäänkin hämmästyttävää että juuri kaikki suomalaiset ovat päätyneet kristityiksi.
Tuosta aivopesusta vielä sen verran, että jos se aloitetaan jo lapsuusiässä niin ihminen saadaan uskomaan käytönnössä mihin vaan. Täällä Suomessa ei onneksi ole niin suljettuja lahkoja, että lapset saataisiin suljettua täysin muun yhteiskunnan ulkopuolelle.
Mitä tulee tuohon todistamiseen, niin olen iloinen ettei oikeusjärjestelmä toimi sinun logiikallasi. Itse en ainakaan pysty todistamaan syyttömyyttäni esim. Kyllikki Saaren murhaan.
"Totuus on kuitenkin se, että erittäin suuri osa uskovista on kasvatettu uskoonsa."
Voi olla, mutta on hullua väittää, että se olisi jotain "aivopesua", kun kuitenkin täällä kerrotaan aika paljon muistakin uskonnoista ja melkein kaikki ihmiset osaavat lukea ja hankkia itsekin tietoa.
"Tuosta aivopesusta vielä sen verran, että jos se aloitetaan jo lapsuusiässä niin ihminen saadaan uskomaan käytönnössä mihin vaan. Täällä Suomessa ei onneksi ole niin suljettuja lahkoja, että lapset saataisiin suljettua täysin muun yhteiskunnan ulkopuolelle."
Senpä sinä sanoit. Siispä varmaan ei Suomessa myöskään tuota aivopesua niinkään harrasteta. Vastustan muutenkin termiä aivopesu esim. lastenkasvatuksen kohdalla, aivopesu on jotain ihan muuta kuin mikään, mitä Suomessa tapahtuu.
"Mitä tulee tuohon todistamiseen, niin olen iloinen ettei oikeusjärjestelmä toimi sinun logiikallasi. Itse en ainakaan pysty todistamaan syyttömyyttäni esim. Kyllikki Saaren murhaan."
Minä en puhunut syyllisyyden todistamisesta, mikä on hieman eri asia kuin olemassaolon todistaminen. Vai väitätkö, että esim. rakkautta ei ole olemassa, koska et voi todistaa sen olemassaoloa?
Aika harva on kuitenkaan valinnut uskontonsa netistä tai mistään muualtakaan saadun tiedon perusteella, koska kukaan ei ole pystynyt todistamaan että joku uskonto olisi juuri se oikea.
Rakkauden (tai minkään muiden tunteiden tai ajatusten) todistaminen ei ole tärkeää siinä mielessä, että ainakin itselleni riittää se että olen itse tietoinen siitä. Jumalan olemassaolo on sen sijaan yksi maailman kiehtovimmista kysymyksistä ja jos joku yritää kovin heppoisin eväin sitä todistaa, katson velvollisuudekseni älähtää siitä ;)
Aika harva on valinnut juu, mutta turha väittää mitään aivopesua tapahtuneen, kun ihmiset voivat aika pitkälle itse valita mitä tekevät, kun tieto siitä on käden ulottuvilla (en muuten edes luokittelisi netistä saatavaa "tietoa" tiedoksi).
No ehkä joillekin Jumalan todistaminen ei ole tärkeää siinä mielessä, että itselle riittää se, että on itse tietoinen siitä?
Useimmille uskovaisille tuo oma tieto ei tunnu riittävän vaan omia näkemyksiä ollaan aina tyrkyttämässä muille. Sinänsä tuo on ihan ok, keskustelen noista asioista ihan mielelläni ja oon joskus tarjonnut kahvitkin parille nätille jehova-tytölle. Yleensä keskustelu etenee niin, että alussa sitä jumalan olemassa oloa yritetään todistaa jotenkin järkevästi ja hetken päästä ollaan siinä, että se oma tietoisuus jumalasta riittää todisteeksi ja kaikkien muidenkin pitäis uskoo se.
Jehovat= kaikki muutkin uskovaiset? Heh enpä usko. Ainakaan muitten mielestä.
nyt kun kerran lapsuudesta puhutaan, niin katoskin seuraavaa:
PS. mistä johtuu että minä tulin uskoon, vaikka olen täysin liberaalista perheestä?
Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?
After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).
For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."
Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.
Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."
Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."
Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.
Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."
Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.
After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."
Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.
Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.
Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."
Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.
Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.
Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.
Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.
William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.
As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.
I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.
ohoh! onko siis suvun vika kun suksi ei luista?
nyt kun kerran lapsuudesta puhutaan, niin katoskin seuraavaa:
PS. mistä johtuu että minä tulin uskoon, vaikka olen täysin liberaalista perheestä?
Introduction
How does one become an atheist? Does a person's relationship with his earthly father affect his relationship with his heavenly Father? These are some of the questions we will explore in this article as we talk about the book Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz.
Vitz is a psychologist who was an atheist himself until his late thirties. He began to wonder if psychology played a role in one's belief about God. After all, secular psychologists have been saying that a belief in God is really nothing more than infantile wish fulfillment. Dr. Vitz wondered if the shoe was on the other foot. Could it be that atheists are engaged in unconscious wish fulfillment?
After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead).
For example, Friedrich Nietzche lost his father (who was a pastor) before his fifth birthday. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound." Dr. Vitz writes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father." Friedrich Nietzche is best known as the philosopher who said, "God is dead." It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."
Contrast Nietzche with the life of Blaise Pascal. This famous mathematician and religious writer lived at a time in Paris when there was considerable skepticism about religion. He nevertheless wrote Les pensées (Thoughts), a powerful and imaginative defense of Christianity, which also attacked skepticism. Pascal's father, Etienne, was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician. He was known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters.
Here we are going to look at the correlation between our relationship with our earthly father and our heavenly Father. No matter what our family background, we are still responsible for the choices we make. Growing up in an unloving home does not excuse us from rejecting God, but it does explain why some people reject God. There may be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Nietzche and Freud
Friedrich Nietzche is a philosopher who has influenced everyone from Adolph Hitler to the Columbine killers. His father was a Lutheran pastor who died of a brain disease before Nietzche's fifth birthday. He often spoke positively of his father and said his death was a great loss, which he never forgot. One biographer wrote that Nietzche was "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound."
It seems he associated the general weakness and sickness of his father with his father's Christianity. Nietzche's major criticism of Christianity was that it suffers from an absence, even a rejection, of "life force." The God Nietzche chose was Dionysius, a strong pagan expression of life force. It certainly seems possible that his rejection of God and Christianity was a "rejection of the weakness of his father."
Nietzche's own philosophy placed an emphasis on the "superman" along with a denigration of women. Yet his own search for masculinity was undermined by the domination of his childhood by his mother and female relatives in a Christian household. Dr. Vitz says, "It is not surprising, then, that for Nietzche Christian morality was something for women." He concludes that Nietzche had a "strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak."
Sigmund Freud despised his Jewish father, who was a weak man unable to support his family. Freud later wrote in two letters that his father was a sexual pervert, and that the children suffered as a result. Dr. Vitz believes that Freud's Oedipus Complex (which placed hatred of the father at the center of his psychology) was an expression of "his strong unconscious hostility to and rejection of his own father." His father was involved in a form of reformed Judaism but was also a weak, passive man with sexual perversions. Freud's rejection of God and Judaism seems connected to his rejection of his father.
Both Nietzche and Freud demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In both cases, there seems to be a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Russell and Hume
Bertrand Russell was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. Both of Russell's parents lived on the margin of radical politics. His father died when Bertrand Russell was four years old, and his mother died two years earlier. He was subsequently cared for by his rigidly puritanical grandmother, who was known as "Deadly Nightshade." She was by birth a Scottish Presbyterian, and by temperament a puritan.
Russell's daughter Katherine noted that his grandmother's joyless faith was "the only form of Christianity my father knew well." This ascetic faith taught that "the life of this world was no more than a gloomy testing ground for future bliss." She concluded, "My father threw this morbid belief out the window."
Dr. Vitz points out that Russell's only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew quite attached. When one of the nannies left, the eleven-year-old Bertrand was "inconsolable." He soon discovered that the way out of his sadness was to retreat into the world of books.
After his early years of lost loves and later years of solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself in this way: "My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companionship . . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God."
Another famous atheist was David Hume. He was born into a prominent and affluent family. He seems to have been on good terms with his mother as well as his brother and sister. He was raised as a Scottish Presbyterian but gave up his faith and devoted most of his writing to the topic of religion.
Like the other atheists we have discussed, David Hume fits the pattern. His father died when he was two years old. Biographies of his life mention no relatives or family friends who could serve as father-figures. And David Hume is known as a man who had no religious beliefs and spent his life raising skeptical arguments against religion in any form.
Both Russell and Hume demonstrate the relationship between our attitudes toward our earthly father and our heavenly Father. In each case, there is a psychological component to their commitment to atheism.
Sartre, Voltaire, and Feuerbach
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most famous atheists of the last century. His father died when he was fifteen months old. He and his mother lived with his maternal grandparents as his mother cultivated a very intimate relationship with him. She concentrated her emotional energy on her son until she remarried when Sartre was twelve. This idyllic and Oedipal involvement came to an end, and Sartre strongly rejected his stepfather.
In those formative years, Sartre's real father died, his grandfather was cool and distant, and his stepfather took his beloved mother away from him. The adolescent Sartre concluded to himself, "You know what? God doesn't exist." Commentators note that Sartre obsessed with fatherhood all his life and never got over his fatherlessness. Dr. Vitz concludes that "his father's absence was such a painful reality that Jean-Paul spent a lifetime trying to deny the loss and build a philosophy in which the absence of a father and of God is the very starting place for the good or authentic life."
Another philosopher during the French Enlightenment disliked his father so much that he changed his name from Arouet to Voltaire. The two fought constantly. At one point Voltaire's father was so angry with his son for his interest in the world of letters rather than taking up a career in law that he "authorized having his son sent to prison or into exile in the West Indies." Voltaire was not a true atheist, but rather a deist who believed in an impersonal God. He was a strident critic of religion, especially Christianity with its understanding of a personal God.
Ludwig Feuerbach was a prominent German atheist who was born into a distinguished and gifted German family. His father was a prominent jurist who was difficult and undiplomatic with colleagues and family. The dramatic event in young Ludwig's life must have been his father's affair with the wife of one his father's friends. They lived together openly in another town, and she bore him a son. The affair began when Feuerbach was nine and lasted for nine years. His father publicly rejected his family, and years later Feuerbach rejected Christianity. One famous critic of religion said that Feuerbach was so hostile to Christianity that he would have been called the Antichrist if the world had ended then.
Each of these men once again illustrates the relationship between atheism and their fathers.
Burke and Wilberforce
British statesman Edmund Burke is considered by many as the founder of modern conservative political thought. He was partly raised by his grandfather and three affectionate uncles. He later wrote of his Uncle Garret, that he was "one of the very best men, I believe that ever lived, of the clearest integrity, the most genuine principles of religion and virtue."
His writings are in direct opposition to the radical principles of the French Revolution. One of his major criticisms of the French Revolution was its hostility to religion: "We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helevetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers." For Burke, God and religion were important pillars of a just and civil society.
William Wilberforce was an English statesman and abolitionist. His father died when he was nine years old, and he was sent to live with his aunt and uncle. He was extremely close to his uncle and to John Newton who was a frequent visitor to their home. Newton was a former slave trader who converted to Christ and wrote the famous hymn "Amazing Grace." Wilberforce first heard of the evils of slavery from Newton's stories and sermons, "even reverencing him as a parent when [he] was a child." Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian who went on to serve in parliament and was instrumental in abolishing the British slave trade.
As mentioned earlier, Blaise Pascal was a famous mathematician and religious writer. Pascal's father was a wealthy judge and also an able mathematician, known as a good man with religious convictions. Pascal's mother died when he was three, so his father gave up his law practice and home-schooled Blaise and his sisters. Pascal went on to powerfully present a Christian perspective at a time when there was considerable skepticism about religion in France.
I believe Paul Vitz provides an important look at atheists and theists in his book Faith of the Fatherless. The prominent atheists of the last few centuries all had defective relationships with their fathers while the theists enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father or a father substitute. This might be something to compassionately consider the next time you witness to an atheist.
ohoh! onko siis suvun vika kun suksi ei luista?
aivoja suhteessa ruumiisi painoon kovin vähän, ja luulet pystyväsi selittämään kaiken järkevästi...
Toipas onkin mielenkiintoista ;) Ihminen varmaan tulisikin paljon fiksummaksi, jos amputoitaisiin kädet ja jalat, jolloin aivojen suhteellinen osuus kasvaisi huimasti. Tuollaisella "ei sitä kuitenkaan voi ymmärtää- argumentoinnilla" voi tappaa tehokkaasti keskustelun kuin keskustelun ja koko ihmiskunnan, jos tuo laajemmalle leviäisi.
Tai no ehkä nykyinen jatkuvan kehityksenkin tie on viemässä tuhoon, mutta mitään ei olisi saavutettu ilman uteliaisuutta ja uskoa siihen, että asioita voi ymmärtää.
vai mitä tuo kaikki on???
Kuvaus aivojen toiminnasta on pieni kopio erään tunnetun Suomalaisen aivotukijan kirjoituksesta.