Psychology of Scepticism

[cloewen]

Being a Christian counselor, I have encountered a large number of sceptics on the web as well as in RL and, since being a counselor, I have often wondered about the psychology of a worldview that is embraced by only 4 to 6% of the American population. Unfortunately, for every well-adjusted sceptic I encounter (using Abraham Maslow's criteria), I meet a raft of others who concern me to one degree or another.

So far, I've come up with seven different types of sceptics from my observations and I'm open to criticism and clarification:

1) The Secular Humanist who stands for something as opposed to against theism. In this case, the betterment of humanity such as George Bernard Shaw. Positive atheism?

2) True Intellectual Atheist who voices intellectual cocnerns over theism without resorting to emotional arguments.

3) Emotional Sceptic who, though voicing intellectual concerns, has a solid emotional base behind their denial of theism because of some ill or evil in their lives.

4) The Trendy Atheist shallowly follows the crowd depending on who is in the Top 10. They want to be cool.

5) The Grandstander just loves to attract attention. Better known as the Listserve Troll. Loves attention. Ingersoll is a good example.

6) The Nihilist. Atheist only because they want no external morality impinging on their lifestyle choices. No God, no responsibility. Albert Camus admitted to such.

7) The truly mentally ill. Their problem is not their theology, but that they need serious medical intervention.

This is my list so far and I'm open to comments, questions, rebuttals and accusations. :smile:

(Note to Dee Dee: I hope this is in the right area. I didn't see a Psychology Department. :smile: )

[undead]

Nearly all atheists are mentally ill to a degree. The only question is what degree.

All atheists are emotional against Christianity, though they try to hide it. I get the impression that its mostly to do with despising Christians they've met.

A problem is that when a Christian comes across other Christians who have no respect for the bible, he routinely assigns them into the 1 Cor 5;11 category;

1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

But when atheists come across these people, he uses it as a reason to reject God altogether:

Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

One of the major problems with orthodoxy is the failure to perceive the threat from the liberal churches for what it is. The failure of the church to speak out must be one of the principle causes of atheism.

It has recently occured to me that the US is probably the world's first atheist state. It was founded on deist/atheist principles, and every atheist can point to the constitution and say: the US is an atheist state and I'm an atheist and I'm legitimate.

And it seems the Christian churches are supine before the constitution and that argument - almost demanding to be despised by atheists. I've yet to hear a single mainstream Christian criticize the US constitution for being deist rather than Christian, which it what it ought to be. One is tempted to have a great deal of empathy with the extremist groups in the US, and often one gets more truth out of them than, eg, espiscopalians.

[spl_cadet]

Just to nitpick, the Soviet Union was the first modern atheist state.

[Xtokalon]

03-08-2003 @ 08:54 PM
undead:

Nearly all atheists are mentally ill to a degree. The only question is what degree.

this can be stated in the contrast: nearly all christians are mentally ill to a degree. the only question is what degree.

All atheists are emotional against Christianity, though they try to hide it. I get the impression that its mostly to do with despising Christians they've met.

likewise, all christians are emotional against atheism, though they try to hide it... (you get the idea.)

[dizzle]

Dear Cloewen:

I have a question for you. Did you envision only theists to participate in this topic or did you want sceptical contribution as well.... I am asking because if you wanted this as a theist-only discussion this would be the right area, but if you wanted sceptical participation, I would move it to Religion 101. As of this point, this is theist-only section of the forum.

[Jawa Man]

I think I have some knowledge on atheists, too. I've grown up in a family with an atheist father (who practices Judaism), and an atheist brother. Most of the people at my school are atheist or RC, and I'm willing to bet the atheist population is larger.

Teenagers that I know like to rebel against the idea of God because of newer theories, such as evolution and the Big Bang. When I was trying to speak to someone during lunch about God, he said, "There is no God. Look - my textbook says the Big Bang happened and it never mentions God." I believe also that because most of their parents are Christians, Christianity should not only be rejected, but never inspected or heard of. One time, I mentioned something about "Crusades", without any preach-intensions in mind, and a girl next to me said, "Will you stop talking about God? You make me sick!" Typically, those atheists who do leave atheism never become Christians (except for me :thumb: ), but become the Westernized Buddhist + Hindu + any other Eastern religion that their parents never heard of.

Oh yeah... and they like to become their own philosophers. They invent their ideas of morality and why it exists, or human purpose, or try to define love (which they will never know without Jesus Christ :yipee: ). I would call them "dynamic philosophers", because I don't know of any other term for them!

[Zakath]

Cloewen,

As a former Christian but current atheist psychologist I find your characterizations amusing and your data flawed.

First, your term "sceptics" should properly be spelled "skeptics".

Second, you did not cite a source for yoru 4-6% figure for "skeptics", but I think if you checked out the data from the 2001 ARIS study you'd find the numbers of non-religious people in American society are actually 14.1%, that represents a group larger than the combined membership of the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists.

The ARIS Study is the "industry standard" study of U.S. religious affiliation.

You can find the study info itself here: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

If you have any questions after looking at the actual summary of data, let me know. I'm around. :smile:

(If DD wants to move this somewhere else, please let me know where it goes...)

[cloewen]

Zakath:

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

First, according to the 1976 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "sceptic" is an approved variant spelling for "skeptic" and is the spelling I am most used to. However, out of respect, I will use what is the more widely accepted spelling. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.

My source for the 4% of the population being skeptics comes from www.Barna.org, but again, I will be happy to go with the 14% from the ARIS survey that I admit I was not aware of. The difference most likely stems from Barna's definition of what constitutes an atheist and an agnostic.

As far as being amused at my generalizations, I am open to correction. One caveat: I'm concerned that you may think that I believe all skeptics are mentally ill. That is not my hypothesis. However, there are skeptics that embrace their world view because of psychological/emotional reasons (just as some thiests do) even though they may claim intellectual reasons. If you feel otherwise, I would be interested to know your viewpoint.

Craig A. Loewen

[cloewen]

03-14-2003 @ 04:09 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

I have a question for you. Did you envision only theists to participate in this topic or did you want sceptical contribution as well.... I am asking because if you wanted this as a theist-only discussion this would be the right area, but if you wanted sceptical participation, I would move it to Religion 101. As of this point, this is theist-only section of the forum.

Dee Dee, please feel free to move the discussion to where you think it appropriate. Thanks!

[Zakath]

Yesterday @ 08:35 PM
cloewen:

Zakath:

Thank you for taking the time to respond.Certainly. You're very welcome.

First, according to the 1976 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "sceptic" is an approved variant spelling for "skeptic" and is the spelling I am most used to. However, out of respect, I will use what is the more widely accepted spelling. Thank you for drawing that to my attention. It's because of the Greek roots (skeptesthai).

My source for the 4% of the population being skeptics comes from www.Barna.org, I find Barna and his organization to be pretty reliable within their field of expertise (evangelical Christianity). Outside that area they seem to have a problem with reporting results that are widely divergent from other studies. It's probably an issue of question design bias and sampling methodologies...

...I'm concerned that you may think that I believe all skeptics are mentally ill. That is not my hypothesis. I did not read it that way. As the Kiwi's and Aussies would say, "No worries."


However, there are skeptics that embrace their world view because of psychological/emotional reasons (just as some thiests do) even though they may claim intellectual reasons. If you feel otherwise, I would be interested to know your viewpoint.I think I would agree with you here. People adopt various viewpoints and then adhere to them with differing degress of tenacity depending on their mental condition. Many atheists I know (which, of course, is hardly a representative sample of all atheists!) merely dropped religion and substituted atheism as the object of their attachment with similar vigor. Unfortunately they apply the same vitriol for those who disagree with them that they used when they were religionists.

All in all, some atheists can be just as unpleasant to be around as any fundamentalist religionist. :brow:

[Woman]

Let me know when it has been decided what kind of thread this is. If you want only believers or if skeptics are welcome to put in their two cents worth. I think I might be able to control my pathological tendencies, my neurosis and my obsessive-compulsive behavior long enough to weigh in.

:dufus:

[Zakath]

Woman,

Unless one of the mods or the original poster objects, I'd vote "come on in, the water's fine". :hi:

[cloewen]

[i]Yesterday @ 07:20 PM
Let me know when it has been decided what kind of thread this is. If you want only believers or if skeptics are welcome to put in their two cents worth. I think I might be able to control my pathological tendencies, my neurosis and my obsessive-compulsive behavior long enough to weigh in.


Yes, come in please.

I'm not trying to make a point, just trying to understand the emotional/psychological basis behind people's choices of the worldview they eventually embrace.

As I've said, I have encountered skeptics who are emotionally and relationally stable and I don't 100% agree with Paul C. Vitz's thesis in his book, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism only because I think it's too simplistic (though interesting).

Please comment.

PS: Has anybody else noticed how slow the 'net is since the start of the war with Iraq or is it just me?

[Zakath]

You want to avoid slow? Stay away from CNN, MSNBC, etc. They're REALLY slow now.

But I just pinged the site here and have a 57 millisecond average turnaround.

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]Today @ 05:24 PM
cloewen:
Yes, come in please.

I'm not trying to make a point, just trying to understand the emotional/psychological basis behind people's choices of the worldview they eventually embrace. [/b]

First off, you have a fundamental problem: atheism is not a worldview, but a trait of a number of different worldviews, ranging from certain strains of Communism, through certain strains of Buddhism, Confucianism to metaphysical naturalism.

As I've said, I have encountered skeptics who are emotionally and relationally stable and I don't 100% agree with Paul C. Vitz's thesis in his book, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism only because I think it's too simplistic (though interesting).

It's simpleminded, you mean. In fact, it is quite amusing. I live in Taiwan, and perhaps a third of the people I meet are atheists. Are they all "fatherless?" is that true of all Confucian literati? All Red sect Buddhists? All Communists? You see the problem...."atheist" and "skeptic" are NOT synonymous. Not all atheists are skeptics, and not all skeptics are atheists. So first you need to think seriously about your terms.

PS: Has anybody else noticed how slow the 'net is since the start of the war with Iraq or is it just me?

Hmmm......

Vorkosigan