Isn’t this what philosophy is all about, though: making a living off of theorizing all day long without proving anything. I, for one, don’t see anything of substance in this post.
Of course, much more evidence would be needed in order to provide strong credence to this theory, but the point is absolutely clear: if belief in God is nothing more than a desire for a father figure, then atheism is nothing more than a desire to kill that father figure.
Wait, what? Atheism be nothing more than a desire to kill a father figure for which there is no evidence it even exists? How do you know my atheism doesn’t stem from my subconscious desire to kill all elves?
This line of reasoning, as well as everything you quoted from Vitz, presupposes the existence of gods. Which is no surprise considering that Vitz is not just a psychologist, but a theologian. Personally, I have little faith (ha!) in the objectivity of someone who tries to integrate Christianity into psychology. How good a psychologist can you be if you have such a strong counterfactual agenda? He also apparently accepts Freud’s theories at face value. You argue that some atheists like to quote Freud on this topic. Well, I don’t — I think Freud was a pseudoscientific hack who liked to focus a bit too much on his mother. Where’s the evidence for Freud’s theories, and where’s the evidence that this can be extended to imaginary persons?
Finally, there is also the early personal experience of suffering, of death, of evil, sometimes combined with anger at God for allowing it to happen. Any early anger at God for the loss of a father and the subsequent suffering is still another and different psychology of unbelief, but one closely related to that of the defective father.
Again, prime example for why Vitz’ hypothesis is worth absolutely nothing: “anger at God” leads to atheism. Sure. In the eyes of an ignorant Christian, atheism has to be rebellion. Unfortunately, it appears you fall right into the same category, writing (emphasis mine):
You cannot have a one-size-fits-all description of why belief in God arises, but once psychologists and atheists undertake the project of theorizing and speculating on the sources of such belief, one can find that those very same theories can account for the origin of a rebelliousness and rejection of that divine figure and alleged source of authority.
Here’s Wikipedia’s definition of rebellion:
Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order.[1] It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority.
You can’t rebel against an authority that has not even been proven to exist. The only thing atheists rebel against is the idea of believing something that lacks evidence.
If you ask me, religion is founded on ignorance. As they say, “if a technology is advanced enough, it seems like magic”. Obviously, the same is true for natural processes. And haven’t there been more than enough religions that had female or even animal gods? It seems to me that the Christian god is male simply because of patriarchy. But the reason for why people invent imaginary friends doesn’t in the slightest affect the question of whether there are gods. And that question continues to be left without any positive evidence whatsoever. Therefore, again: what’s even the point of this discussion?
