Even if one assumes that Vitz is correct and atheism is (often) a projection of psychological needs & issues, no argument would be made out against the atheistic position. A psychological explanation for belief in gods is a valid argument against theism because it provides a reason for religious belief that is not supernatural. But the counter claim is merely an attack against atheists themselves, because it would never suggest a supernatural cause and instead the argument must rely on the ad hominem fallacy.

A poor father figure may very well increase the likelihood of someone adopting an atheistic position, but so what? A "healthy" background does not make someone's theological position more valid, nor does the opposite background deprive people of the capability for rational thought. It may simply be that the lack of a good father figure often raises the initial doubts about the concept of a supreme patriarch or makes it easier to reject the notion. And yes, it could sometimes result in an outright rejection of the notion of supreme authority without proper consideration, but again I ask, so what? It is not an argument against the atheistic position and even if it were the examples are not a statistical study, so such a correlation may not exist in fact or may be limited to males.

The article itself seems to be written with more interest in attacking atheists than in finding facts or reviewing the book. This is demonstrated by "secular fundamentalists hate God", the bizarre claims about Muslims and anti-Americanism and the references to Hitler and Stalin as if Nazism and communism were ever *about* atheism. (Similarly many so-called religious wars had nothing to do with religion.) And Pascal's wager is brought up once again, which suggests that the author of the article has never taken the time to explore the views of atheists.

The review is ridiculous and the book is obviously inane.

Greg-m you missed my point."I suspect life after death is like life before birth." I'm suggesting the great nothingness of athieism.
Raving athieists and religious fundamentalists are but one in the same.We just don't know enough about the universe to be so sure of the realities and unrealities that science is discovering.The concepts of other universes beyond "black holes" are but a few new notions that are challenging our traditional views of reality.

While I don't accept the views of traditional religions ,I respect their achievements,and see these things as a progression of our consciousness.

This article drips with amateur attempts to veil intent. The author's intent here is to boost his religious self esteem, which that mere act alone is an indication of the validity of one's religious claims.

This author shows his naiveté by using the old and widely ridiculed ‘Pascal’s Wager’. The flaws of Pascal’s Wager are so obvious, it is used as an example in some of the most introductory of Philosophy classes. The “What if you’re wrong?” argument shows the non-objectivity of the person asking such a question, and their lack of understanding of the basics of logic, reason, and deduction.

Pascal’s Wager first assumes the nature and definition of God. If the Wiccan God and Goddess are the true gods, then Pascal’s Wager does not apply. Pascal’s Wager only applies IF the ONLY way a God could exist is for that God to be like the Christian God.

And this author also has no clue about scientific statistics. He takes “well known’ atheists and assumes they are a valid sampling of all atheists. He doesn’t’ consider a whole host of other factors that could create both atheism AND success. What this author needs to sit down and learn is how to take a sampling of any sub-group.

OhioJoe

I fully agree, OhioJoe, the stupidity of this article (and book) is that it rests on the existence of the Christian God. It is patently illogical to attempt to give psychological reasons for not believing in something which nobody has proven to exist.

Yet it is fascinating to try to understand why some humans insist on believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. The main reason people do this is that they are taught this from an early age – often with religious fathers as role models (how many Popes were converted atheists who 'saw the light'?). Luckily, some people do not idolise their fathers enough to be brainwashed into believing everything they say – there is an obvious danger in trusting in authority figures without thinking critically about what they are saying.

The article and book inadvertently adds support for what it sets out to attack – militant, righteous skepticism and atheism.

Some feminist theologians would argue that at least with Christianity it a boy thing - boys trying to work out their relationships!