The Emotional argument for Atheism

Reformed Nihilist

I was listening to a secular podcast recently, and one of the hosts expressed a frustration with the fact that although he was committed to having his beliefs reflect what the best evidence and logical arguments show, that logical arguments are typically not very emotionally compelling. By contrast, it seems that the major compelling factors for religious conversion are based on emotional arguments. I get the frustration, because one of the primary benefits of logic, strict reasoning and passionless analysis of evidence is to bypass the cognitive pitfalls (confirmation bias et al) of our common emotive reasoning habits. Given those points, I'd like to offer a fairly simple logic based but emotive argument, similar to Pascal's wager, that I don't believe has logical holes in it, but that does convey the problem with religious belief in an emotionally vivid way. Here it goes:

When I look at the world, and I look at the religious claims that people around me make, for a number of reasons that don't have to be listed here, those religious claims seem to be false to me. I have no doubt that those who make those claims look at the world, and for reasons that don't have to be listed here, their claims seem to be the most tenable, and make the most sense. So we have two people who, for whatever reasons, in good faith (no pun intended), see the same things and come to mutually exclusive conclusions. Now if it turns out that I am more or less right, then both of us will continue with our lives, and the only justice that we will encounter will be meted out on earth. That seems fair enough, right? If, on the other hand, I am wrong, and there is an eternal judgement, I will be punished with eternal damnation for simply believing what makes most sense to me and speaking honestly and openly about that belief. That doesn't seem very fair at all, does it? To put it bluntly, what kind of an asshole god would punish someone for believing and expressing what the brain they were "given" concludes? If such a god did exist, would it be moral to worship it? I don't think it would be.

So therein concludes my emotive argument for atheism. Thoughts? Critiques?

Agustino

Given those points, I'd like to offer a fairly simple logic based but emotive argument, similar to Pascal's wager — Reformed Nihilist

No need to do this. Most atheists already disbelieve God for emotional reasons, which are merely masked under elaborative arguments, which, however, ultimately lack rigour.

So we have two people who, for whatever reasons, in good faith (no pun intended), see the same things and come to mutually exclusive conclusions. — Reformed Nihilist

Nope, most of them already had the conclusions prior to seeing the things; that's the sad and unfortunate aspect of it.

If, on the other hand, I am wrong, and there is an eternal judgement, I will be punished with eternal damnation for simply believing what makes most sense to me and speaking honestly and openly about that belief. — Reformed Nihilist

No - you will, if you are like most atheists, have believed something because you didn't want God to exist, not because you had ample evidence that he didn't.

Reformed Nihilist

No need to do this. Most atheists already disbelieve God for emotional reasons, which are merely masked under elaborative arguments, which, however, ultimately lack rigour. — Agustino

I'm not quite sure at how you would justify the generalization about "most atheists" (I'm unaware of any studies indicating this), but I'll assume you meant "most atheists I've encountered". Given that, I would ask that you take me at my word that I don't believe religious claims because they don't make sense to me, and that the only "emotional" reason is that I have an emotional preference for believing things that make sense to me. Fair enough?

Nope, most of them already had the conclusions prior to seeing the things; that's the sad and unfortunate aspect of it. — Agustino

Again, I don't know how you suppose to be an expert on the hidden motivations of most atheists, but can you imagine that it's possible that at least one atheist on this planet can believe something different than you concerning the existence of a god, and that they, or more specifically, I, arrive at that conclusion in good faith? Do you not believe that reasonable and rational people can arrive at contradictory conclusions in good faith?

No - you will, if you are like most atheists, have believed something because you didn't want God to exist, not because you had ample evidence that he didn't. — Agustino

Again, if you can grant me the courtesy of assuming I am not lying about my motives or beliefs, the point stands even if I am the only atheist in existence that honestly believes that it makes most sense to believe that there are no gods or supernaturality.

It doesn't even matter, because even if I were to grant that my belief were irrational and emotive (which I only grant for argument's sake), I would have been created as an emotive and irrational creature, thereby still arriving at my conclusions emotively , irrationally, but still honestly and in good faith, as emotive and irrational would be my "god-given" nature.

_db

↪Reformed Nihilist

Welcome to the forum, Reformed Nihilist!

I'd say that as much as these so-called "New Atheists" claim to be logical and rational, they are merely using emotional heuristics. Now I turns out that under further analysis I found that I agree with the general term "atheism", although I'm not some retarded "gnostic" atheist as so many teenage rebels like to proclaim. It would seem, then, that the "New Atheists" are right but for the wrong reasons, at least in my opinion because I think atheism is correct (but I don't know it is correct).

As for your argument, it seems to me that you are basically arguing for putting up the middle finger to god. If god exists and has an eternal plan for the universe, that would be extremely nightmarish. But the fact of the matter is that if we are to take Pascal's Wager (which is problematic by itself) to be true, then it would only make sense to worship this god. It surely is easy to rebel against this totalitarian god but that's not going to do much for you when you are suffering eternal torture in hell; it is a rhetoric device meant to appeal to the emotional thinking of most people. Giving god the middle finger, deserved or not, is hip, rebellious, and "bad-boy"-esque.

Not to mention that this does not actually argue against the existence of god, it just shows that this god would be a dick. Just because this god would be malignant doesn't mean this god wouldn't exist. (although I'm under the impression that no gods exist).

Reformed Nihilist

Not to mention that this does not actually argue against the existence of god, it just shows that this god would be a dick. — darthbarracuda

It does actually argue against the the most commonly espoused modern notions of god, which ascribe god as benevolent. I agree that it doesn't address the ancient notions of capricious gods like the Greeks or Norse, but I don't find myself proselytized to by those believers. If they want in on this discussion, I'll address that when it occurs.

_db

↪Reformed Nihilist

In which case, so what? So what if the commonly-accepted form of god is showing him as benevolent? That doesn't change the fact that this god would be malignant!

If everyone in North Korea thinks that Kim Jong Un is a benevolent god, and then it is shown that, oops, turns out he's a jerk, does that mean Kim Jong Un doesn't exist?

Agustino

↪Reformed Nihilist

I am such an atheist Reformed Nihilist. But I despise atheists generally, because intellectually they are very shallow, just like S. Harris, R. Dawkins, etc.

Reformed Nihilist

In which case, so what? So what if the commonly-accepted form of god is showing him as benevolent? That doesn't change the fact that this god would be malignant! — darthbarracuda

All my atheism is, in practice, is a critical analytical response to the commonly held and culturally prevalent espousal of gods. If there's someone that wants to espouse on the existence and benefits of worshiping a dickish god, you are correct that this argument doesn't address their claims. Should they weigh in, my response will be different. My project here isn't to make a logical argument disproving the possibility of any god, it is to make an emotive argument, that doesn't suffer from logical inconsistencies, that might be persuasive.

Reformed Nihilist

I am such an atheist Reformed Nihilist. But I despise atheists generally, because intellectually they are very shallow, just like S. Harris, R. Dawkins, etc. — Agustino

You're welcome to your opinions on those guys, but I don't see what it has to do with my thread. I never mentioned Harris, Dawkins, nor any specific intellectual pro-athiest arguments. It sounds like you have an axe to grind, but maybe you want to create your own thread describing your problems with New Atheism to express your problems with it.

Agustino

↪Reformed Nihilist

I just sought to make the point that most atheists are atheists due to emotional motives, so they don't really need an "emotional argument", which is what you seek to provide :)

Reformed Nihilist

I just sought to make the point that most atheists are atheists due to emotional motives, so they don't really need an "emotional argument", which is what you seek to provide :) — Agustino

Why would I try to argue atheism to atheists? The argument is directed at theists, and more specifically, as darthbarracuda rightly points to, at the modern western theists one is likely to encounter either on the internet on in north america.

_db

it is to make an emotive argument, that doesn't suffer from logical inconsistencies, that might be persuasive. — Reformed Nihilist

I'm not sure if that's possible.

Reformed Nihilist

I'm not sure if that's possible. — darthbarracuda

Care to elaborate on that? Clearly I think it's possible, which is why I made the argument. What specifically would make it impossible? Are you suggesting that it is not conceptually possible? If so, on what grounds? Or is it that it's just such a herculean task as to be unlikely to be accomplished? If so, describe how my attempt fails, so that I may try to better my attempt.

Agustino

The argument is is directed at theists, and more specifically, as darthbarracuda rightly points to, at the modern western theists one is likely to encounter either on the internet on in north america. — Reformed Nihilist

So you think your argument can convince a theist to become an atheist? Why do you think an argument can facilitate this conversion, as opposed to life experiences, etc.?

Reformed Nihilist

So you think your argument can convince a theist to become an atheist? Why do you think an argument can facilitate this conversion, as opposed to life experiences, etc.? — Agustino

People do change their minds. Arguments do persuade people. Why not this one on this subject?

Added on edit: I don't imagine that my argument will counter a lifetime of experiences. I imagine that most people with a lifetime of experiences will have discovered a number of things such as that there are cases where they previously believed something and found later that they were mistaken, or that the common wisdom on a matter ended up being false, or that things passed down from previous generations were not always of value, or that deeply held emotional beliefs can cause people to make bad decisions and act in ways that are destructive. I think that if people already recognize these things, and also are willing to enter an open discussion of how religion relates to these experiences, this might be one compelling argument.

_db

↪Reformed Nihilist

An emotional argument stems from emotions, not logic.

Reformed Nihilist

An emotional argument stems from emotions, not logic. — darthbarracuda

That's not how I'm using the term. I am using it to describe an argument who's primary appeal is emotional, regardless of the origins of the argument. Besides, there's no reason that an argument that stems from emotions can't be logically consistent. That's a false dichotomy.

Thorongil

I have no doubt that those who make those claims look at the world, and for reasons that don't have to be listed here, their claims seem to be the most tenable, and make the most sense. — Reformed Nihilist

I don't think so. I find most people do not critically examine the beliefs they purportedly hold, religious or otherwise. Much less are they even capable of stating clearly what said beliefs are. In other words, there is no weighing of evidence, whereby religious conviction appears as the caboose to a train of reasoning. People's beliefs rather hover about in their mental space like a fog, which makes it impossible to separate them out for logical scrutiny. The apologists who try to make arguments and debate with people are a very tiny minority of religious people and to the average believer serve merely as a tool to avoid critical thinking and to maintain the illusion of credibility.

To the extent that everyone worships something, everyone is religious, and there are two kinds of religious person in the world: the ietsist and the mystic. The masses, no matter their professed religion or lack thereof, belong to the former.

That doesn't seem very fair at all, does it? — Reformed Nihilist

Believers will retort with a common appeal to ignorance: "God's ways are not our ways." So what seems unfair to you may in fact not be in reality and in the grand scheme of God's plans. This, of course, immediately strikes one as a cop out and leaves a fairly bitter taste in one's mouth.

mcdoodle

If, on the other hand, I am wrong, and there is an eternal judgement, I will be punished with eternal damnation for simply believing what makes most sense to me and speaking honestly and openly about that belief. That doesn't seem very fair at all, does it? To put it bluntly, what kind of an asshole god would punish someone for believing and expressing what the brain they were "given" concludes? If such a god did exist, would it be moral to worship it? I don't think it would be.

So therein concludes my emotive argument for atheism. Thoughts? Critiques? — Reformed Nihilist

Can you reasonably mix appeals to 'fairness' with 'emotiveness'? If I invented a species, I must say I'd expect them to have done better with their brains than our contribution to this world we're in, however benevolent I was on the first seven days. In a capricious world why might not a god be capricious? 'How we laugh up here in heaven, at the prayers you offer me...You all must be crazy to put your faith in me...That's why I love mankind, you really need me,' as Randy Newman's God puts it: (Which I think is close to Kierkegaard's God, and for all I know, Landru's if he's about.) Not that I'm any kind of believer. Confirmed atheist. But I think you'll have to box cleverer than that, R N :)

I'm amazed, incidentally, at the number of posters who claim to know authoritatively what large numbers of other people think and believe, especially in order to despise the others' purported beliefs, a trait I can't see as awfully philosophical. Meanwhile here's Randy:

Landru Guide Us

So therein concludes my emotive argument for atheism. Thoughts? Critiques? — Reformed Nihilist

My feelings exactly. Either there is no empirical God, or if there is one, he's a monster. To believe in an empirical God, biblical or otherwise, requires one to accept he's total immorality. Which sadly orthodox Christians do. They actually have to argue God was doing a good thing by ordering Abraham to slit Isaac's throat like an animal or by letting the Holocaust take place. The cognitive dissonance of orthodoxy is chilling.

This doesn't prevent me from being a Christian, just from accepting orthodoxy.

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Reformed Nihilist

The problem is that the emotional/conceptual distinction is a bit of a red-herring (the difference you are really talking about is between talking about God in terms of whether God exists or talking about God in terms of whether we ought to believe God exists). All the "emotional" arguments are conceptual in the sense that they make promises accusations on which danger and desire are dependent. Your argument there, for example, is working in the idea God is immoral and because of that, it immoral to worship God.

In terms of "emotional arguments" the one you give here is pretty common. It appeals to some people who are uncomfortable with the way God has acted. In some cases, it could convince people two abandon their following of God. In other cases, it's pretty weak because what you are arguing is addressing an ethical (and emotional) need of an individual.

It's not that strong with respect to people who are concerned about, for example, the suffering of the world and the desire to continue living. Indeed, they wouldn't be persuaded at all, for what matters to them is a God who gifts them a suffering free afterlife, not the nature of God's actions.

If you wanted to appeal to them, you would have to turn the world into benevolent force. Make the world provide everything God was supposed to. Argue that, for example, in the future, an afterlife with no suffering will just exists. You could even add the stipulation that, by existence, people by the nature of their actions of belief, will exists in either the suffering free state (i.e. heaven) or the opposite (i.e. hell), if you want to appear those who wanted some causal link between life lived and future reward/punishment.

Reformed Nihilist

I find most people do not critically examine the beliefs they purportedly hold, religious or otherwise. Much less are they even capable of stating clearly what said beliefs are. In other words, there is no weighing of evidence, whereby religious conviction appears as the caboose to a train of reasoning. People's beliefs rather hover about in their mental space like a fog, which makes it impossible to separate them out for logical scrutiny. The apologists who try to make arguments and debate with people are a very tiny minority of religious people and to the average believer serve merely as a tool to avoid critical thinking and to maintain the illusion of credibility. — Thorongil

This is exactly my point. I personally believe that I have a moral responsibility to conduct my discussion in a manner that is consistent with good logic, evidence and sound reasoning, so for that reason, it is not acceptable to intentionally present an argument that is solely emotive, like "going to church is boring and it sucks to follow someone else's rules", but if people, as a rule, aren't particularly rational, then it would be ludicrous to think that proposing a particular rational argument would be persuasive. That's the point of presenting an argument that isn't strictly rational, but that is still consistent with good reasoning.

To the extent that everyone worships something, everyone is religious, and there are two kinds of religious person in the world: the ietsist and the mystic. The masses, no matter their professed religion or lack thereof, belong to the former. — Thorongil

I don't know that everyone worships something to some extent, unless you want to use the term "worship" in an exceptionally flexible sense. I certainly don't worship anything in the traditional sense.

Believers will retort with a common appeal to ignorance: "God's way are not our ways." So what seems unfair to you may in fact not be in reality and in the grand scheme of God's plans. This, of course, immediately strikes one as a cop out and leaves a fairly bitter taste in one's mouth. — Thorongil

I'd rather discover what believers will say by hearing what believers actually have to say. I was hoping there might be a few around to chime in.

BC

Believed in or not, God is a great mystery and difficult to explain. But then, so are homo sapiens difficult to explain and mysterious. People are maybe less 'mysterious' than just plain devious.

Is the testimony of believers actually reliable in providing information about God? Why do non-believers assume that believers actually know something about God? Do you (nonbelievers) think that believers have a pipeline to the truth which you can not have?

Believers have no more knowledge about God than non-believers. They think they do, because they have been on hand to hear all sorts of preaching. But, you know, it wasn't God who was doing the preaching. It was just one more devious homo sapiens who was doing the talking.

You don't like some, many, most, or all of the features which you have heard ascribed to God. Fine. What makes you think any of that is true? Jews, Christians, and Moslems know no more about God than you atheists do.

You are quite free to imagine God as you like.

Reformed Nihilist

Can you reasonably mix appeals to 'fairness' with 'emotiveness'? — mcdoodle

Appeals to fairness are usually emotive. Try giving a candy to one 5 year old, but not to his twin brother, and I promise you, you will hear a very emotive appeal to fairness. Why are we outraged (an emotive response) about the rich "1%", or the lobbying power of corporations? We perceive their level of influence as unfair. "Those fuckers!" we think. Can you reasonably expect appeals to fairness not to be emotive?

Reformed Nihilist

This doesn't prevent me from being a Christian, just from accepting orthodoxy. — Landru Guide Us

So do you believe in and worship a dickish god? Or do you reject all traditional claims about god exempting it's existence? Or is there a third option that I'm not seeing?

Reformed Nihilist

The problem is that the emotional/conceptual distinction is a bit of a red-herring (the difference you are really talking about is between talking about God in terms of whether God exists or talking about God in terms of whether we ought to believe God exists). All the "emotional" arguments are conceptual in the sense that they make promises accusations on which danger and desire are dependent. Your argument there, for example, is working in the idea God is immoral and because of that, it immoral to worship God. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, there is a distinction between emotive arguments and intellectual arguments. I am not saying that it is immoral to worship an immoral god, I am saying that if god is as purported, he's an asshole, and it's fucked up to worship an asshole. I am not playing at objectivity, I'm trying to avoid it. I'm making it personal. That's the distinction between an emotive argument and an intellectual argument about emotions.

Reformed Nihilist

Believed in or not, God is a great mystery and difficult to explain. But then, so are homo sapiens difficult to explain and mysterious. — Bitter Crank

Sorry Bitter Crank, but this is one of the most intellectually lazy sentences I've read in some time. Lint is a great mystery. Stuff is a great mystery. Life is a great mystery. You know why? Because through either laziness or an emotional attachment to the idea of mystery, which is a great intellectual leveling of the playing field, where morons are equal to geniuses, people refuse to speak clearly, ask clear questions or seek clarity in any form. Care to join me in the camp of seeking clarity?

Is the testimony of believers actually reliable in providing information about God? Why do non-believers assume that believers actually know something about God? Do you (nonbelievers) think that believers have a pipeline to the truth which you can not have? — Bitter Crank

Would the answers to these question be mysterious, or even mildly controversial, if the subject were bigfoot? If you claim to know enough to believe in a god, then you have reasons to hold those beliefs. They're either good reasons or they're not, right?

Believers have no more knowledge about God than non-believers. They think they do, because they have been on hand to hear all sorts of preaching. But, you know, it wasn't God who was doing the preaching. It was just one more devious homo sapiens who was doing the talking.

You don't like some, many, most, or all of the features which you have heard ascribed to God. Fine. What makes you think any of that is true? Jews, Christians, and Moslems know no more about God than you atheists do.

You are quite free to imagine God as you like. — Bitter Crank

You know that the notion of god didn't come from nowhere, right? So if we agree that all the religions have no special access to any divine knowledge or understanding (I think that's what you're saying, right?), but we can historically track that the notion of god is a cultural one that spreads only through cultural institutions like religions, then what do you think you believe in, and why would you call it god, which is a historically religious term?

BC

Lint is a great mystery. — Reformed Nihilist

You know that the notion of god didn't come from nowhere, right? — Reformed Nihilist

Indeed. God came from the fecund ground of the human imagination. God is ours. If you find deficiencies in god, look to the creators. God, of course, is whatever people need and want god to be. Comforter, protector, creator, king, ally, enforcer, wrathful judge, weak or omnipotent, eternal, guide, miracle maker, and so on. Of necessity, given the many preferences of his creators, the gods are immensely contradictory.

Is god real? Like lint? No. Is god real like Apollo? Sure. Individual and collective cultural productions are responsible for the gods--all of them: Jehovah, Wotan, Buddha, Zeus, Minerva and many more. Was the creation of the gods a cynical manipulation of the gullible? Sometimes, possibly. And is belief in the gods an entirely empty experience? No, of course not. The prophets and the believers are almost certainly genuine in their testimony, but that doesn't make god real, like lint.

Should believers in possession of a "hollow faith" be dismissed as fools? No. Faith is real. But in the matter of the gods and their natures, they need not be taken as reliable sources of information about gods. They will claim to know ("God wants us to...") but they can't. No one can know about the gods, so we need not argue about it. (Within some systems of belief there are stated reasons for not claiming to have knowledge about god. In some traditions God excluded man from knowing him.)

You might find this intellectually lazy and slovenly too. so be it. I try to take religion and the gods as a serious cultural achievement of our species rather than a ridiculous hoax. i don't think god revealed himself to us, and then many believed. Man made god and then many believed. I used to believe in god, quite ardently. Getting from believer to dis-believer required a lot of effort--lots of long-standing beliefs had to be pitched overboard.

Landru Guide Us

So do you believe in and worship a dickish god? Or do you reject all traditional claims about god exempting it's existence? Or is there a third option that I'm not seeing? — Reformed Nihilist

It makes no sense to believe in, much less worship, a God that clearly doesn't exist and who would be monstrous if he did. God can't be empirical and moral.

That has no relationship with accepting a text as sacred, which to my mind is just a way to say it is existentially relevant to who I am and who I should become. Hamlet is important to me (Bloom argues the play created the modern person), but I don't "believe" Hamlet is or was an empirical person.

jorndoe

I think it might be worthwhile extending "emotive" with semi/intuitive as well.

On my part, disbelief in the claims of a God of theism does not really hinge on any one specific argument, though such arguments are cumulative. Some knowledge of history also plays a part, like how insights and claims have advanced over time.

For the most part, theist/scriptural claims are introduced at some young age, be it by peer pressure, parental indoctrination (even instilling desire and hope for eternal bliss and fear of eternal punishment in some cases), implicit social and cultural expectations, or (preferably) information presented in a less biased fashion.

When it comes to scriptures, I find every reason to not take them as authoritative in any significant sense.

If I were to speculate, say, with respect to reincarnation and heaven/hell, then I simply find more mystery without any good reasoning. A more "neutral" scenario would be one where an "afterlife" would present new opportunities (e.g. to learn), as opposed to being beamed up to "everlasting bliss" or tossed down into "the grand barbecue roasting forevermore" (as taught by Christians and Muslims).

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. — Unknown but sometimes attributed to Marcus Aurelius (121-180)

I decline wasting my life preparing for death. :)

mcdoodle

Appeals to fairness are usually emotive. Try giving a candy to one 5 year old, but not to his twin brother, and I promise you, you will hear a very emotive appeal to fairness. Why are we outraged (an emotive response) about the rich "1%", or the lobbying power of corporations? We perceive their level of influence as unfair. "Those fuckers!" we think. Can you reasonably expect appeals to fairness not to be emotive? — Reformed Nihilist

Well I suppose so. I was attempting to tease you into lightening up the argument really. I quoted Randy Newman in the rest of my post, I think to say ironically: I believe you are on a fool's errand here. Any argument you come up with, a witty theologian will turn into an argument for God if they're that way inclined. One of my oldest friends (sadly dead now) used to waylay atheist me with absurdity-as-proof arguments for his deep Christian faith, and in the end we smiled at each other and moved on.

It greatly matters to me if believers inculcate children with falsehoods or anti-evidential ways of thinking, or oppress women in the name of faith, or if they bomb other people because those people don't share their beliefs - sometimes such oppressors believe in religion, sometimes they are atheistic Stalinists or idealistic zealots. In short, I think God or gods are a stand-in for a different underlying problem, and an atheist yelling emotively at religious people isn't going to help what matters to me.

The Emotional argument for Atheism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions