I think Freud’s ideas are false. Vitz does as well.
But they are nevertheless interesting, and further, they are still employed in debates over religion in an attempt to demonstrate why religious beliefs are grounded in subconscious desires. Neither myself, nor Vitz, thinks these ideas are true, but it is worth pointing out that those who do have failed to see how their own accepted ideas rationally commit them to there being a psychological underpinning for their own atheism.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that Vitz has postulated a hypothesis, done studies on it and even written a book, even though he knows it to be wrong? And that when discussing this topic he deliberately hides the fact that he doesn’t believe any of it anyway? Just to give some atheists who use a flawed argument a taste of their own medicine?
Now that sounds like a stretch. I’m sure you think Freud’s ideas are false, and you are just trying to play Devil’s advocate; but that doesn’t appear to be the case for Vitz.