In every culture and at every time, there exist in the minds of the masses many kinds of beliefs about the universe. These beliefs range from the idea that a Supreme Being provides a basis for purpose in the universe to the idea that each person is his or her own god and creates the purpose of the universe. Perhaps the most intriguing is the atheistic belief, which suggests that no ultimate meaning can be found in our universe at all. This belief is intriguing in part because it suggests a worldview that is contrary to what humans would want to be true, and in part because it has been held by great minds, such as Jean-Paul Sarte and Friedrich Nietzsche. This essay will attempt to identify the various causes of the atheistic phenomenon by suggesting that religious intolerance, disheartening fatherly relationships, sociological isolation, and the advance of scientific knowledge are its major motivating factors.

Religious intolerance in a society by those who believe in God probable is the greatest motivating factor for atheistic belief in that society. Two general categories of religious intolerance that commonly motivate atheistic belief are moral and intellectual intolerance.

On the moral side, people who believe in God and who also act hypocritically by practicing the very opposite of what they preach to others can motivate people to become disillusioned with God and to even reject his existence. For example, the fact that many Christians have actually burned people for not accepting their beliefs has caused many to see the Christian God as merely a tool for power among ignorant and bigoted people. Thus, the immorality of those who claim to know God is a major obstacle for many, preventing them from conceding that the God described by people of immoral character is real.

The intellectual intolerance exhibited by many believers in God who are afraid to seriously question their own beliefs is equally motivating for people to reject the existence of God altogether. When religious people do not promote honest questioning and critical evaluations of their beliefs, then often those with a more intellectually humble attitude will become disgusted with a kind of "blind" faith. Thus a closed-minded attitude among believers in God can motivate some people to rebel from the religious intolerance by rejecting that religion and all beliefs connected with it, including the existence of God. As a result of a person’s natural repugnance towards intellectual stupidity, those raised in groups that discourage critical analysis of their own beliefs are more likely to become atheists later in life than those raised in a households with non-religious parents.

A less pervasive, though perhaps the most interesting cause of atheistic belief, is the psychological effects of having poor fatherly relationships. Typically, advances in psychoanalysis have been used to identify the unconscious motivations for belief in God. For example, in The Future of an Illusion Freud suggests that "[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature" (21), and "therefore, religious beliefs are: illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind" (30). Thus, the view that believers in God are irrationally motivated, while the skeptics are intellectually honest has become widespread. However irrational, psychological motivations for atheism can also be identified. Prof. C. Vitz is convinced that "for every person strongly swayed by rational argument there are many, many more affected by nonrational psychological factors" (The Psychology of Atheism 3). Professor Paul C. Vitz admits that his own "reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist-skeptic from about age 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual or moral integrity, and that his "motives were, and still are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social scientists" (The Psychology of Atheism 3). Vitz even suggests that according to the "Freudian framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father and replace him with oneself" (The Psychology of Atheism 4).

In relation to the Oedipal desire, psychoanalysis suggests that when one’s father is absent or so weak as to die, or so untrustworthy as to desert, then it becomes easy for that person to place his hostile attitude towards his earthly father on his heavenly Father. The evidence for this theory involves the linkage between atheism’s greatest philosophers and their poor fatherly relationships. For example, Diderot was an avowed atheist-indeed he is one of the founding brothers of modern atheism. Yet Freud made an insightful comment concerning him: "if the little savage were left to himself, preserving all his foolishness and adding to the small sense of a child in the cradle the violent passions of a man of thirty, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother (Le neveau de Rameau 331). Although Voltaire was not an atheist, he did not accept the existence of a Personal God. He also strongly rejected his father-so much that he rejected his father's name and took the name "Voltaire." Sigmund Freud's father was also was a poor role model for Freud. Specifically, his father was a weak man unable to financially provide for his family, and Freud writes that his father was a sexual pervert. Karl Marx also made it clear that he didn't respect his father. Ludwig Feuerbach's, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Baron d'Holbach are other examples of atheistic intellectuals who had poor relationships with their fathers. In addition, the most prominent atheists in more recent times are Bertrand Russell's, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre's, and all of them lived most of their lives knowing their fathers had died. Although the theory is far from being a universal representation of unconscious motivation, it appears to be an undeniable factor in motivating atheistic belief.

Sociological isolation also seems to be a factor connected to atheistic belief. In societies where people have more personal contact with others, the percentage of people who believe in God is greater. This is evidenced by societies that become "modernized," thus causing sociological dependencies to be unnecessary as a result of the benefits of technology. In these modernized societies, such as the United States or Canada, atheistic belief has risen. The reason that social isolation and atheistic belief are related might be due to the fact that such isolation is unhealthy to a human’s natural development, and recent studies of the brain reveal that realization of a Transcendent Reality is a natural process of the human brain. Thus, Professor Ralph McInerny says, "there is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe in God" (Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist,3). Thus, the idea that people naturally tend to "transcend" themselves and believe in some God might also give a clue as to why people in "unnatural" or unhealthy environments (e.g. sociological isolation), are more likely not to believe in the Transcendent.

Social isolation is not only related to an unhealthy environment, but social isolation also causes religious involvement to be more difficult, and thus, the religious burden that corresponds to thinking that God exists can subtly cause people to refrain from belief in God altogether. Contemporary philosopher, Adler, presses arguments for the existence of God very strongly and seems very close to accepting the living God. Yet Adler comments that to become seriously religious "would require a radical change in my way of life… The simple truth of the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious person" (Graddy, p. 24). Thus, the burden of religious commitment is a factor that relates to social isolation, which motivates atheistic belief in some.

Finally, the advance in science and technology seem to be connected with atheistic belief. Many people tend to think the scientific knowledge itself motivates atheism, but I will contend that the atheistic worldview that relates to the advance in knowledge is probably not a result of the new information itself, but rather, our possession of it. One reason for making this subtle contrast is that the last decade has seen a growing number of scientists who think that science is actually a "surer way to God than religion" (Physicist, Paul Davis). Thus, the information itself has actually persuaded scientists to believe in God, (P. C. W. Davies is a notable example). Why then has atheistic belief increased as scientific knowledge has increased? The answer to that question seems to be that "omnipotent" science claims the ability to explain away everything, even the existence of God. Science has in many ways become a new God, giving people a security about what is true apart from traditional religions. The Tower of Babel depicts this idea well, since it demonstrates how human advancement can be a powerful force, causing people to forget God (Geneses 11).

In light of the above arguments, it is concluded that religious intolerance, unhealthy fatherly relationships, sociological isolation, and the advance of scientific knowledge are the major factors that lead to atheistic belief. Although identifying the causes of atheistic belief does not necessarily invalidate the objectivity of that belief, the causes identified above suggest that atheistic belief is not merely a result of intellectual investigation as is commonly thought, but is based also on cultural pressures as well as unconscious, psychological factors. As we acquire a better understanding of the various factors that cause atheism, we can enjoy a more accurate insight into where and when this phenomenon is most likely to arise.

Addler, Graddy. (unknown date), p. 24).

Ralph McInerny, Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist, (date unknown), p. 3.

Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion. (1927, 1961), p. 23.