…and this is a 
Atheism as grand oedipal symbolic act
Category: Kooks
Posted on: October 17, 2007 5:37 PM, by PZ Myers
I've read a lot of wacky reviews of Dawkins' book, but this is so absurd I nearly choked on my coke. How about a Freudian psychoanalysis of Dawkins?
The analysis? Dawkins' atheism is grounded in a psychological murder of the God/Father...For Dawkins, the Oedipal counter-current manifests itself not in hearing divine voices but in an unquestioning commitment to a new paternal figure/institution, namely modern science (note the element of trust in science that is necessary to make this commitment, since science alone does not disprove God/murder the Father, only makes God's existence/Father's survival improbable). Science is Dawkin's adoptive Father figure now that he has done away with the old one.
Dawkins needs to write more about squid to give these fellows more fun.
Comments
Squid? Who cares...
He needs to write more about cuttlefish.
Posted by: Steven | October 17, 2007 5:45 PM
I have sometimes wondered why no enterprising journalist, as far as I know, hasn't had a dig around in Richard Dawkins' past in order to find the cause of his revolt against religion.
Dawkins probably revolts because he thinks religion doesn't make any sense. There's my analysis. :P
Posted by: 386sx | October 17, 2007 5:46 PM
Wonder what makes him apply to only to Dawkins and not all atheists. Does he not also think that Freud (also an atheist) was doing the same thing?
Posted by: Brian W. | October 17, 2007 5:48 PM
I'd call the guy a tool, but that might be interpreted as a Freudian slip...
Posted by: Midwestern Gent | October 17, 2007 5:52 PM
I think he's a cigar-chomping armchair psychoanalyst.
Posted by: Mark P | October 17, 2007 5:53 PM
Talk about the Future of an Illusion.
Posted by: John Danley | October 17, 2007 6:06 PM
By the same reasoning, then, what about the faithful?? Are they simply sublimating an obsessive father-love complex with a big dose of sexual submission thrown in?
What bullsh*t anyhow. I don't think even psychology takes Freud seriously anymore. When you see someone spouting freudian psychobabble that's the equivalent of them waving a little flag that reads, "I am bullsh*tting"
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 17, 2007 6:07 PM
Quick, someone write me a rundown or give me links of who the devil Mark Vernon is so I can write a ridiculously maudlin and nigh-schizophrenic Jungian analysis of him.
Posted by: Dan | October 17, 2007 6:10 PM
"I'd call the guy a tool, but that might be interpreted as a Freudian slip..."
How about a "rancid, worm-infested coyote carcass"?
Posted by: Laser Potato | October 17, 2007 6:16 PM
See, I thought the accusation was going to be that Dawkins wanted to kill God and supplant him -- and that would be cool as hell.
Posted by: Dustin | October 17, 2007 6:22 PM
Freudian ... Darwinian
Posted by: John Morales | October 17, 2007 6:33 PM
How would he explain the Myers kids?
Posted by: John McKay | October 17, 2007 6:34 PM
In the book Truth: A Guide, philosopher Simon Blackburn talks about a hypothetical "Nightmare Psychologist" who tries to explain your belief that there is butter in your refrigerator by analysing your childhood, your ethnic background, your culture, your sexual orientation, your education, your relationship with your mother -- everything and anything, in fact, but never once going to the refrigerator and looking to see if there might actually be butter in there, on the assumption that it might be relevant.
Posted by: Sastra | October 17, 2007 6:37 PM
Freud may have written about largely fictive nonsense, but at least he was an entertaining raconteur. This turgid mess is largely indecipherable; the decodable parts are not worth the ovaltine.
In the category of freudian concern trolls, I award them no goats, gruff, billy or nanny.
Posted by: brandon | October 17, 2007 6:46 PM
Sometimes a non-belief is simply a non-belief (sorry).
Posted by: Greco | October 17, 2007 6:51 PM
My Freud's a little rusty--I haven't read him since I gave up on Psychology in college--but according to the Jim Morrison version, at least, killing the Father is only half the story, yes?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 17, 2007 6:52 PM
OMG... that's the most roundabout way of calling Dawkins a motherf****r, I've ever heard!
Posted by: Shawn S. | October 17, 2007 7:05 PM
ah, he just figures Dawkins wants to F*** a/the Virgin
Posted by: dorid | October 17, 2007 7:18 PM
Dan (#8):
Here you go. . . but I think the point of psychoanalysis is that you don't need to know anything about the subject to draw conclusions about them!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 17, 2007 7:31 PM
a**** th***** ***a **ng *****it**** **! ****! ****** ***! ******! ***!!!!
Posted by: D*st*n | October 17, 2007 7:40 PM
Time for Mark to add an addendum to his next book (What Not To Say: Finding the Right Words at Difficult Moments.):
Finding the right words to express your chagrin when a bunch of Pharyngulans have a field day with your nutty fly-by Freudian analysis of Richard Dawkins.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 17, 2007 7:42 PM
Be sure he includes "rancid, worm-infested coyote carcass".
Posted by: Laser Potato | October 17, 2007 8:05 PM
Sven: Yes, it should also be demonstrated that by criticizing religion, Dawkins is trying to WAAAAUGGHHMMAAARRRGGCOMEOYEAAHH.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 17, 2007 9:07 PM
Freud is to psychiatry as Darwin is to biology: Each is given credit for foundational work, and many of their basic principles have been kept, but overall, the respective fields have mostly built over them.
Posted by: David Harmon | October 17, 2007 9:09 PM
Jesus, can a guy stretch a metaphor any further? The entire field of science is a father figure wtf? Ok, let me try.
One wonders whether Mark Vernon (the pied piper) collected his "facts" (rats and children) using a computer (fife) or by going to the library (cock in his mouth).
Posted by: H. Humbert | October 17, 2007 9:15 PM
It reads like it came from the Pooh Perplex
http://www.amazon.ca/Pooh-Perplex-Frederick-Crews/dp/0226120589
Posted by: sailor | October 17, 2007 9:16 PM
I actually get this one a lot. And some ID abortion at Dembskis OU shindig tried the same thing on me "Well Ive found most atheists have father issues..." *rolleyes*
Ive got two words for theists that try to play that card: "Chastity balls"
Posted by: ERV | October 17, 2007 9:30 PM
So I guess the question is "Who's your Daddy?"
Posted by: Larry | October 17, 2007 9:37 PM
The "sickly inquisitive cigar chomping armchair psychologist(TM)" part of my brain desires a psychoananalytic take on C. Hitchens.
Posted by: blue | October 17, 2007 9:40 PM
And without his contributions to the language and the culture, I wouldn't have one of my favorite totally inappropriate psychiatrist jokes ever.
Three psychiatrists were sitting together over coffee, and one of them said, "Freudian slips are awful! I just undid a great deal of progress with one of my patients through a Freudian slip I made.
The patient is intensely conflicted over his sexuality, and we've been working through that issue together. He was just starting to trust me and open up about his fears. Then, as he was leaving the office after his appointment, I *meant* to say 'Have a nice day!'. But instead, I slipped and said 'Have a nice gay!'. From the look on his face when I said that, I'm afraid I've lost his trust, and undone all that work we did together."
The second psychiatrist said, "Freudian slips can really be a problem. I've been working with an alcoholic who doesn't recognize that his drinking is creating real problems for him. He started to have a breakthrough, and so I *meant* to ask him, 'What do you think?'. But instead, I slipped and said, 'What do you drink?'. Now he thinks I'm making fun of him, and all that progress we were making is gone."
The third psychiatrist said, "You are so right--Freudian slips are terrible! For example, I was sitting at breakfast with my wife the other morning, and I *meant* to say, 'Would you pass the butter, please?'
But instead, I slipped and said, 'You goddamn bitch, you ruined my life!'".
Posted by: thalarctos | October 17, 2007 10:05 PM
Weird, all things considered. I mean, the point of an Oedipus complex is that one wants to make a name for one's self by supplanting their father figure. Dawkins isn't trying to supplant a father figure, and certainly not trying to make a name for himself. Dawkins is trying to explain to the masses something that was discovered by a number of other people that he happens to respect very much.
Dawkins is a communicator, not a revolutionary. The fact that a lot of people somehow think smearing Dawkins is going to hurt evolutionary biology is absurd. I mean, hell, when was the last time the man even conducted any research?
Posted by: JDP | October 17, 2007 10:12 PM
Well, if you were snorting it like you're supposed to, you wouldn't have that problem.
And you call yourself an atheist.
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | October 17, 2007 10:32 PM
They pray to their "Heavenly Father" all the time. If they're Catholic, they call lots of different men "Father". And they say atheists have daddy issues?
Posted by: Carlie | October 17, 2007 10:53 PM
I continue to think that religion is a type of mental illness, and that if we lived in a rational society, it would be recognized as such.
(I also think a lot of OTHER mental illnesses would vanish as a side effect.)
Interesting thing about psychology and mental health counseling, apparently ANY religious authority figure, with zero training, can become a mental health counselor, basing their counseling on the principles of their religion rather than any sort of science.
And once they get rid of "Darwinism," any farty old Baptist minister can set himself up as a fully-qualified biology teacher.
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 17, 2007 11:08 PM
He wasn't Paul C. Vitz, was he?
Posted by: noncarborundum | October 17, 2007 11:49 PM
...and they call adaptationist explanations "Just So" stories?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | October 17, 2007 11:57 PM
Come on! Everyone knows that Freud was as big an asshole as James Watson!
Posted by: autumn | October 18, 2007 12:16 AM
Yikes, for a moment I read 'chastity balls' in an inappropriately Freudian way.
So, is this arsemonkey actually seriously proposing this Richard Dawkins oedipal whatchamathing? Because I'm finding that really hard to swallow.
Crap. Just can't get away from the Freudian.
Posted by: Buffybot | October 18, 2007 12:52 AM
noncarborundum:
I flashed on him when reading the post. Did a fisking back in April on his really poor generalized 'analysis' of why we atheists do what we do.
Hard to believe he's got a degree in psychology, when it seems more like armchair quarterbacking.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | October 18, 2007 1:30 AM
It strikes me as quite ironic to have a theist mangling Freud to attack atheists. It's like a Jew mangling Mein Kampf to attack norse mythology.
Posted by: Michael X | October 18, 2007 4:29 AM
As others have pointed out dispensing with daddy is only half the Oedipal story. Where's my hot MILF action huh? Dammit, gypped again!
On a "serious" note: why oh why oh why does every whackjob cretinous godster think that atheism is about hatred/rejection of god(s)? (Please save the Calvinist crap, I've heard it). Can't they get their servile little minds around the concept that no evidence = no belief.
Bastards to a man I say.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | October 18, 2007 4:37 AM
You should send that in to Private Eye. It would be perfect for their Pseuds' Corner.
Posted by: jim | October 18, 2007 5:04 AM
Seconded Jim, it would be absolutely perfect for Pseuds' Corner.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | October 18, 2007 5:26 AM
Remember, though, that sometimes a squid is just a squid.
Posted by: Mark S. | October 18, 2007 5:47 AM
Peter Medawar's essay on Darwin's Illness (reprinted, for example, in Pluto's Republic) ends by discussing the interesting theory that Darwin had Chagas' Disease (he recorded that he was bitten, in Argentina, by the Benchuga bug, now (but not then) known to be the vector. But before getting on to Chagas' disease, Medawar discusses various other theories of why Darwin was an invalid for more than half his life, including one theory by a psychoanalyst called Good:-
"For Good, 'there is a wealth of evidence that unmistakably points' to the idea that Darwin's illness was 'a distorted expression of the aggression, hate, and resentment felt, at an unconscious level, by Darwin towards his tyrannical father'. These deep and terrible feelings found outward expression in Darwin's touching reverence towards his father and his father's memory, and in his describing his father as the kindest and wisest man he ever knew: clear evidence, if evidence were needed, of how deeply his true inner sentiments had been repressed."
What a shame Medawar is not still around to discuss the little gem at the head of this thread. Nobody did scathing better, or with more urbane wit.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | October 18, 2007 8:00 AM
Hahaha! Dawkins can now compete with Hamlet for most ridiculous pseudo-Oedipal pseudoanalysis ever.
Posted by: Faithful Reader | October 18, 2007 8:27 AM
so if dawkins wants to kill the father (god)... does that mean he's sleeping with the mother (nature)?
that could explain a lot. :D
Posted by: arachnophilia | October 18, 2007 10:55 AM
What no one seems to realize is that science is not de facto anti-religious.
All of the major religions describe a God who acts frequently and intimately in the affairs of mortals. If such a God existed, it would be readily detectable. If we lived in a "christian Universe" prayer would literally move mountains. If we lived in a Jewish universe, there would be more Jews than stars in the universe. If we lved in a Muslim universe, Islamic countries would be especially blessed by God, stable, and peaceful. And if we lived in any of those universes, scientific findings would reveal those facts, and run right to those conclusions.
But we do not live in such a universe, we live in this one.
Though scientific methodology is value-neutral, scientific findings have certainly turned out to be atheistic.
I tis time for religious people to, literally, face facts.
And science dependant on people putting trust in it. Does the commenter even know how science works: The less you trust it, the more effective it is.
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 18, 2007 11:31 AM
"The less you trust it, the more effective it is."
Whereas with Herr Professor Doktor Freud, of course, the opposite is true - the more you trust it, the more effective it is at persuading credulous people of the insight of bizarre evidence-free interpretations of inaccurate readings of books by atheist scientists. (It doesn't become any more effective at curing real mental illness, of course. But that would be asking too much...)
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | October 18, 2007 12:28 PM
And what issues do female atheists have?
Or don't fundies think such exist?
Posted by: khan | October 18, 2007 6:52 PM
Don't be silly, Khan. Everyone knows fundamendalists couldn't care less what women think or what their issues are, as long as they keep their slut legs shut 'til they marry a man to head up their household.
See, female atheists is what you get when a women gets her head full-a learnin': then she starts up a-thinkin', an' then there ain't no keepin' her down no-how.
Posted by: Brownian | October 18, 2007 7:00 PM
Brian W.: Haven't you noticed, though, that there's a strong adoption of Freud amongst those who want mushyheaded pseudoexplanations of things? (Cf. Charles Taylor, famous Catholic and philosopher who finds scientific psychology dehumanizing and thinks "narrative approaches" are more congenial.)
autumn: Worse, in a way. At least Watson will hopefully be remembered for a legitimate scientific accomplishment. Freud has almost none (and no medical ones) to his credit.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | October 20, 2007 10:40 AM