The Psychology of Atheism

The psychology of atheism brings in the huge and impossible question of what is God before we can move on to the question of belief and disbelief in God, so it’s tricky. Atheism as we all know is a disbelief in or denial of God or gods or a position that God does not or cannot exist. Theism or belief in God is based on the notion of a higher power considering the fact that the universe seems to be greater than us and seems to suggest the role of a supernatural / higher being who controls it. God is considered the first cause who created everything else and using the design argument of philosophy, God is the ultimate designer of the universe. The belief in God is one of the oldest beliefs of humanity and of course led to the development of more organized belief systems like religion.

Atheism or absence of belief in God has various forms as materialism and communism as also rationalism, objectivism, positivism and science. The history of materialism goes back to the Carvaka school of Hinduism in the 6th century BCE and also to Democritus, the Greek philosopher who proposed atomism. Even Buddhism with no emphasis on personal God, is according to many an atheistic religion. Thus some form of atheism already began with materialistic philosophies and with Socrates, doubting the existence of something and asking questions as with skepticism became a very popular philosophical position and actually led to the intellectual need for better definitions of God and the human condition. However with the rise of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions, acceptance of God was popular throughout the Middle ages and even during the Renaissance when art and literature depended heavily on religious ideas and concepts. The sudden change in people’s beliefs of course came with the rise of science, socialism, logical positivism and with influential thinkers like Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, Darwin and others.

The philosophy of atheism is varied and logical positivism on which science is based considered that since no experiment could prove or disprove God, there can never be any evidence to suggest that God exists. Marx of course provided a sociological explanation suggesting that religion is some kind of social construct, an institution that served as the ‘opium for the people’ and only helps the upper classes to control and oppress the working class. Nietzsche who largely influenced Freud considered religion as man’s wish fulfillment and God as created by man as part of this wish fulfillment. The theory of evolution by Darwin which suggests that the universe is several billions of years old and that genetic variation and selection have led to development of species was also completely incompatible with Christianity and all other forms of religion that heavily depends on the concept of a personal God and creationism or the theory that God created the universe within a specific time period. All these factors together led to an ‘atheistic revolution’ in the early part of the 20th century.

With atheism it is necessary to understand what can lead to such beliefs that God does not exist. There are sociological explanations such as people from certain regions and countries, say for example communist countries who do not have a religion are naturally atheists as they don’t follow organized religion and don’t believe in God. Thus the question asked could be whether belief of God is inherent in a person or whether belief of God is constructed by society. Can individuals born in an atheist family still somehow have a personal belief in God? Of course they can and that is how the psychology of atheism is somehow more explanatorily plausible than a sociological explanation of atheism which can define the phenomena of atheism in society but not atheism in an individual.

The psychology of atheism thus provides an individualistic explanation of atheism and although certain individual psychological reactions, feelings, or behavior could be generalized, some others are largely personal or specific. Carl Jung obviously used this sort of categorization to distinguish a collective and personal unconscious region of the mind. Jung and Freud were however completely different in their understanding of religion. Whereas Freud largely believed that religion was based on oedipal and libidinal wishes and is a direct result of human need for protection and security, Jung emphasized more on self actualization in the form of ‘individuation’ and a spiritual purpose in life.

Freud wrote and studied extensively on religion and considered it like Marx a sort of delusion and God as a projection of individual needs for perfection. Considering Oedipal theories, the father and parents being significant in one’s childhood, God in psychoanalysis takes the role of the father and thus according to psychoanalysis, an individual’s relationship with the father largely defines his relationship with God. The concept of ‘God as the father’ is the basis on which the psychology of atheism could be explained. Thus if atheism is largely considered as moving against God, it also naturally implies moving against the father. Thus an atheist would be an individual who has for some reason developed a difficult or destructive relationship with the father. In fact psychologists suggest that many atheists like Marx and Freud did have difficult relationships with their father and the lack of a father in one’s life as in Russell’s case, also shaped his beliefs in atheism.

Atheism is largely moving against the establishment, against any form of organized moral culture and several explanations could be provided on the psychology of atheism –

1. Atheism is a need for independence, a need to break away from organized moral systems and brings out the revolutionary streak in us – the ‘revolutionary’ atheist
2. Atheism is a need to replace the role of the father or God or any authority with rational individualistic or self-oriented explanations – the ‘frustrated’ atheist
3. Atheism is a social or intellectual need arising from certain social beliefs or beliefs in certain principles such as in science – the ‘intellectual’ atheist’

Considering the first explanation, it is easy to understand why many of us become atheists at some point of our life, usually during adolescence which is the period when we tend to drift away from the sense of belongingness, develop a sense of independence and try to move against the authority and established norms. In fact high school, college and university students in their late teens become atheists, simply because when we are young and in the process of imbibing new ideas through education, knowledge etc., we do become skeptical and from our doubts and a need for change we suddenly want to reject established traditions followed by our parents and society and want to do something different. In fact Shelley published ‘The Necessity of Atheism’ when he was still at University in the early 19th century. More recently in the 20th century, atheism became popular among the younger generation who were taught rational explanation and scientific principles and found these to be more credible than religious principles. For young people atheism means progression, a change and young people with a revolutionary streak look for change and this sort of atheism is a belief of the ‘revolutionary atheist’. This sort of atheism is constructive and focuses on change and progress in society with emphasis on moving beyond religious ideas and towards greater harmony. However atheism being a phenomenon of the 20th century, the sense of atheism as a revolutionary idea is now seen as too dated by most people and there is a now a renewed interest in understanding the God question.

The second explanation on atheism as directly arising due to difficult relationships with the father and the need to obliterate or do away with the father completely is the basis for Freudian explanations of atheism. The ‘frustrated atheist’ is one who hates the father or any social authority for that matter. However the Freudian explanation may be too limited and a general frustration against the authority and God can also be the basis of disbelief in God. This sort of atheist is frustrated at home or in personal and professional life and from the personal frustration, there arises a need for self sufficiency instead of dependence on God or fate. Such individuals look for explanations of the universe through rationalistic means and science or any positivistic or rationalistic philosophy helps. If the atheist is an intellectual, this sort of atheism can lead to constructive forms of self sufficiency and independence in intellectual thinking leading to a creative personality. If he is not an intellectual, the emphasis on self sufficiency in this case is manifested through materialism, hedonism and egoism. In extreme cases this sort of atheism would be harmful for the individual and also for the society as it can lead to lawlessness, as seen in anti-socials.

The third explanation of atheism is atheism as a result of knowledge of scientific principles and rational philosophy and many scientists become atheists simply because they believe that God and science are incompatible. So in this case atheism is caused by knowledge and not directly by any personal frustration, hatred towards father or need for progress. This sort of atheist is the ‘intellectual atheist’ who purely needs evidence and believes that God and religion cannot be explained and thus should not form part of our discussion or understanding or suggests that the question of God is a delusion or that God does not or cannot exist. Many scientists and philosophers, sociologists and even artists are in favour of this sort of position. In certain cases where atheism is a way of life as in communist countries, atheism is an accepted social idea and can appeal to intellectuals although individuals can challenge this and become theists and then use intellectual explanations to support theism.

Of course, like every other philosophical position, atheism is ultimately just another philosophical position, it is not necessarily a way of life. It can never be the ultimate explanation of defining or not defining the existence of God and although knowledge can lead to atheism, knowledge can equally lead to theism and both the positions would be true if the explanations are convincing. This is an endless and open controversy and unlikely to be resolved any time soon