Kreitsauce's Musings

If Richard Dawkins had his way, that phrase would have a whole new meaning today. In Dawkins’ view (mentioned in The God Delusion as well as on his website, religious education is no different than acts of pedophilia. Such a belief is astounding to me. Hitchens is no different when he writes about children who have “had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory education of faith.” Seriously, guys? Christian education should be illegal? This sort of thing is absolutely outrageous to me.

It’s bad enough that Dawkins and Hitchens want to make it illegal to train a child in the Christian faith. It’s much worse that they are leaving us with only government schools, since parents apparently can’t be trusted. Perhaps they should check out the wonders of the schools in the Soviet Union sometime. They could even look at a lot of the government schools in America and realize that state-run isn’t a very good idea. Things just don’t go well. American freedom must not be allowed to erode any more than it already has, and that includes a parent’s freedom to educate their child as they see fit.

Finally, what does calling religious education “abuse” do to the subject of real abuse? It’s an insult to those who have experienced it. Broken bones, damaged psyches, sexual assaults, and battered bodies are the results of real abuse. Being raised to believe in a kind and loving God “in the nuture and admonition of the Lord” is not. Let’s not forget what the title of this post really means in context. “Suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” It seems to me that being raised in a household of faith is as far removed from abuse as I could possibly imagine.

Last week, I wrote about the reasons why so many men refuse to go to church. I want to follow up on that train of thought a little bit and talk about the relationship between faith in God and having a father-figure. Dr. Paul C. Vitz of New York University’s Psychology department published an article in 1999 that appears to also be the subject of an upcoming book entitled Defective Fathers: Psychological Origins of Atheism.

In his study, Vitz noted that many famous atheists had been neglected or abused by their fathers. Some fathers had simply been not nearly so strong in character or personality as they desired. Consider the words of H. G. Wells, who said: “My father was always at cricket, and I think [mum] realised more and more acutely as the years dragged on without material alleviation, that Our Father and Our Lord, on whom to begin with she had perhaps counted unduly, were also away – playing perhaps at their own sort of cricket in some remote quarter of the starry universe.” By studying atheists and a group of Christians, Vitz theorized that the atheists’ disdain for God began as a disdain for their own human fathers.

In contrast, Vitz found that Christians tend to be considered psychologically healthy. This flies in the face of Christopher Hitchens’ book, which states quite plainly that religion is grounded on wish-thinking. To Hitchens, God exists in believers’ mind simply because we want Him to be there. Our deepest longings for something- Someone- beyond ourselves cause us to create a God to believe in.

Hitchens proves nothing by noting that we long for God. There are, after all, many people who have  a good reason to long for God to be absent from the picture. They may not want Him to tell them what to do. They may not like taking ultimate responsibility. I’d say an atheist has at least as strong of a reason to disbelieve in God as a believer has for belief in God. Inner motivation has nothing to do with proving or disproving God’s existence.

No doubt, there is something within most people that does long for the Eternal. That longing doesn’t mean I fabricated God to be the object of that longing. I longed for food today, and I enjoyed some beef stew for lunch and some marinated chicken for dinner that I’m quite sure were real. I longed for fellowship, and I was able to enjoy talking to friends and family. But you may say to me: “Yes, but I can perceive the food and the friends with my senses. Those aren’t the same as God, who cannot be seen.” That’s true, but think about it a little more. Before I knew Him, I knew that I longed for something. It was only after I came to faith that I knew what my longings were all about. A child may long for food or companionship but not know what to call it. Also, hunger and loneliness are concepts, not objects to be perceived, just like a longing for the Eternal God. The desire is intangible, but the object is not.

PS- Apologetics 315 has a link to a free MP3 of Vitz if you care to listen…