Paternal Image of God and Psychology

[Nihilist]

Most will agree, I hope, that God, as He really is, is beyond all images and descriptions.
Starting from this premise, it would seem valid to suggest that the image of God a particular person or group develops says more about the psychology of the person/group, rather than about God HImself.

The traditional image of ‘God the Father’, is obviously, paternal. Freud would say this is to satsify the need for the ‘absent father’. There could be some truth to this- which does not necessarily imply that God is ‘pure illusion’, of course, but that our own psychology shaped the image we form.

I suppose it might follow that those who had a negative relationship with their, might either become anti-God, or may express this aggression, in adopting atheism. On the other hand, people with a negative father relationship might develop a kind of ‘substitute paternal figure’ in their image of God- an ideal father.

I myself had a mainly negative relationship with my father. Now, I realise my image of God is wholly impersonal- some kind of Neo-Platonic One, and I have a strong desire to deny all anthropomorphic descriptions of God. But other people, perhaps with different backgrounds, really do go for the ‘loving Father’ image.

Attached is a poll, representing, in simplified form, relationship between human father (positive and negative) ad attitude to God (either positive-love, belief- or negative- anger, disbelief). It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation.

Please feel free also to describe your own experiences or views.

 

[revert_jen]

Most will agree, I hope, that God, as He really is, is beyond all images and descriptions.
Starting from this premise, it would seem valid to suggest that the image of God a particular person or group develops says more about the psychology of the person/group, rather than about God HImself.

Sorry, I have to disagree with the premise, at least the way you seem to mean it. God revealed Himself in a certain way, which is why we have the image of “God the Father.” We didn’t make it up.

Now, it is true that the psychology of the chosen people may have fed into God’s choice of revealing Himself that way. But God isn’t just the God of one people or one time, so His choice of the image to use when He revealed Himself has to have some real connection to who He is and His relationship to us.

Of course, God is neither male nor female. God is not my father in the same way that my earthly father is my father. But if there was not some real analogy there, God would have revealed Himself differently.

God is who He is. While it is certainly true that we cannot fully conceive of the essense of God, some images of Him are closer than others. Since we can’t fully understand God, we have to go by what he has revealed about Himself in order to make our ideas of Him as close to reality as they can be (even if it’s not very close). God is more like a Father than He is like a table. The Trinity is three persons, not three theoretical constructs, but also not three humans.

Also, if you are a Christian, you cannot completely avoid an anthropomorphic view–God became Man in Jesus Christ.

–Jen

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It looks that anger is being conflated with disbelief and love is being conflated with belief. What of those that may believe there is a god and have no feelings of love towards that god-concept or those that don’t believe there is a God and have no anger about it?

In part I speak about myself. I enjoy my relationship with my father and spend a lot of time with him (I may take him on a trip he’d like to go on next week). I’m not convinced that god-concepts that i have been introduced to be factual (not to say they are all fictional; some I can’t apply a truth evaluation to). Neither love nor hate are applicable to my reaction to those god-concepts.

 

[Nihilist]

Sorry, I have to disagree with the premise, at least the way you seem to mean it. God revealed Himself in a certain way, which is why we have the image of “God the Father.” We didn’t make it up.

Now, it is true that the psychology of the chosen people may have fed into God’s choice of revealing Himself that way. But God isn’t just the God of one people or one time, so His choice of the image to use when He revealed Himself has to have some real connection to who He is and His relationship to us.

Of course, God is neither male nor female. God is not my father in the same way that my earthly father is my father. But if there was not some real analogy there, God would have revealed Himself differently.

God is who He is. While it is certainly true that we cannot fully conceive of the essense of God, some images of Him are closer than others. Since we can’t fully understand God, we have to go by what he has revealed about Himself in order to make our ideas of Him as close to reality as they can be (even if it’s not very close). God is more like a Father than He is like a table. The Trinity is three persons, not three theoretical constructs, but also not three humans.

Also, if you are a Christian, you cannot completely avoid an anthropomorphic view–God became Man in Jesus Christ.

–Jen

Sure- maybe I put the premise too dogmatically. But the fact remain, that whether a particular image is ‘correct’ in the sense it is the one God has authorized or suggested, our relationship to such images, and they way we adapt them is a psychological decision.

I think it’s plausible also to recognize that, within any tradition, divergences in preferred images of God are possible, while the same doctrinal beliefs that are held. All Christians will hold the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the ‘Fatherhood’ of God, etc. But some Christians relate more to one image of God than the other. Some de-emphaize the paternal aspect, whereas other emphasize it, and some emphasize the humanity of Christ, whereas other emphasize the divinity.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Paul Vitz wrote a book in 1999 called Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism that proposes that atheism derives from a person’s poor relationship with his or her father. I have not read it, but based on reviews on Google and Amazon it’s all anecdotal.

Me personally, I’m not a believer and my Roman Catholic dad (who just turned 73) is awesome

 

[Nihilist]

It looks that anger is being conflated with disbelief and love is being conflated with belief. What of those that may believe there is a god and have no feelings of love towards that god-concept or those that don’t believe there is a God and have no anger about it?

In part I speak about myself. I enjoy my relationship with my father and spend a lot of time with him (I may take him on a trip he’d like to go on next week). I’m not convinced that god-concepts that i have been introduced to be factual (not to say they are all fictional; some I can’t apply a truth evaluation to). Neither love nor hate are applicable to my reaction to those god-concepts.

Yes, it is a simplification. I am assuming the people who believe in God tend to love Him (or at least feel they should love Him), and also that the decision to become an atheist may often results from dissatisfaction or anger at an ‘apparent’ God. Of course, there are many other possibilities.

I have never came accross a person, though, who has said, “Sure, God exists, but my feelings to Him are entirely neutral.” But, at least in principle, it would be possible.

If you did, hypothetically, start to favor the possibility that God did exist (say, in response to some convincing argument or experience), do you think you would maintain a neutral stance?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Paul Vitz wrote a book in 1999 called Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism that proposes that atheism derives from a person’s poor relationship with his or her father. I have not read it, but based on reviews on Google and Amazon it’s all anecdotal.

That’s not quite correct. I’ve read the book. It is carefully documented to show father son relationships of many prominent atheists, including Freud himself. The anecdotes recorded are biographical information, which in the field of psychology is the record of experience, and experience is what psychology is all about. So anecdotal evidence is as good as, and sometimes a whole lot better, than statistical evidence.

Vitz does not assume all atheists have had bad or weak or absentee father relationships. Rather, he is concerned to show that many do. I happen to read my own experience of life into what he said about many other atheists. My own life anecdotes fit completely into the theory that a bad or damaged or weak or non-existent father relationship tends to weaken our hold on God the Father.

My return to belief in God occurred a year or two after the death of my Father.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Vitz does not assume all atheists have had bad or weak or absentee father relationships. Rather, he is concerned to show that many do.

What sample size are we talking about here? Is this a study that he did or is this just a sample of atheists that he found that happened to fit his hypothesis? Does he go into non-believers who had good relationships with their fathers or believers that had poor relationships with their fathers?

I may have to pick up the book and decide for myself.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes, it is a simplification. I am assuming the people who believe in God tend to love Him (or at least feel they should love Him), and also that the decision to become an atheist may often results from dissatisfaction or anger at an ‘apparent’ God. Of course, there are many other possibilities.

Yes, there’s quite a number of possibilities.

I have never came accross a person, though, who has said, “Sure, God exists, but my feelings to Him are entirely neutral.” But, at least in principle, it would be possible.

Diest may be one of the groups for people that have this disposition.

If you did, hypothetically, start to favor the possibility that God did exist (say, in response to some convincing argument or experience), do you think you would maintain a neutral stance?

I don’t know. I suppose it would depend on what the attributes are of the god of which the person had convinced me. Some god-concepts are personal, some impersonal, some interactive/invasive, some are now. It may be difficult for me to predict my own reaction. Take the simple and highly likely possibility that I am to be introduced to a new food at dinner in a few weeks. Suppose I am asked to predict whether or not I will like that food. There’s no way for me to say. Even if you told me a few things about this new food I may not be able to predict my reaction.

I only use that as an example to help say that I don’t know how I will react to a convincing argument or experience until I encounter a convincing argument or experience.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What sample size are we talking about here? Is this a study that he did or is this just a sample of atheists that he found that happened to fit his hypothesis?

I may have to pick up the book and decide for myself.

The sample size is of famous atheists only, whose biographies were available to him. I don’t believe he interviewed any atheists, nor do I believe interviews would have been particularly helpful since people who have problems with their fathers (or mothers) rarely like to talk about that.

There is also a section of the book that deals with famous theists and their fathers.