InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Personally I view any logical examination as a process that is fundamentally devoid of subjective emotional relationships - the conclusions drawn from that process may have intellectual implications that lead to subjective emotional responses, however the intellectual process itself is both valid and meaningful when completed with sound reasoning and premises.
Both Positive and 'Negative' emotional repercussions may arise due to those 'neutral' intellectual processes and conclusions; the logical processes and their conclusions are neither positive or negative (though some people may perceive them as such due to their world view) however the individual's emotional response to the conclusions drawn may be positive or negative, mainly due to the way in which those conclusions contest or support elements of their worldview (the person's existing understanding of themselves and existence, including biases and assumptions) as well as how readily the individual is able to establish alternative elements that maintain their existing worldview, or else to modify their worldview in such a way as to incorporate the challenge faced - or else to simply discount how applicabile the challenge is to the validty of their world view (say 'it doesn't count'). This is done in an effort to reduce the intellectual discomfort (cognitive dissonance) between what you hold to be true and thenew experiences that challenge those beliefs.
I personally have experienced some negative emotional responses including depression (not diagnosed or anything, I just recognise the symptoms) as a result of logical examination of metaphysical concepts such as 'God', however I personally felt that such emotional states, while valid as responses to something that I felt had dramastically altered my worldview and left me with a situation where I was unable to establish an objective intellectual equivalence for the subjective emotional beliefs that I had previously held as far as the 'meaning' or 'purpose' of living and so forth. My way around this was to examine the 'need' for such a purpose, to determine if it is a purely logical need or whether or not it is emotional; my conclusion was that it was an intellectual expression of a subconcious attempt to mitigate an emotional state of uncertainty - I was attempting to find an 'answer' to quell my uncertainty about something, which I believed to be about the existence of myself in this universe, i.e. why do I exist, and alludes to a broader question why do we exist.
Once again, to examine each of these from a purely logical perspective and from an emotional perspective: Logically speaking there is no 'need' for us to exist unless there is something that 'needed' it (such as a god, an alien designer or something else); from an emotional perspective I found this vastly unsettling.
My eventual response, was to simply embrace the intellectual explanation and shift my world view sufficiently to reduce that negative emotional turmoil - I simply accepted that there was no need for a 'purpose' or something similar, it was not easy, but it was simple.
Both Positive and 'Negative' emotional repercussions may arise due to those 'neutral' intellectual processes and conclusions; the logical processes and their conclusions are neither positive or negative (though some people may perceive them as such due to their world view) however the individual's emotional response to the conclusions drawn may be positive or negative, mainly due to the way in which those conclusions contest or support elements of their worldview (the person's existing understanding of themselves and existence, including biases and assumptions) as well as how readily the individual is able to establish alternative elements that maintain their existing worldview, or else to modify their worldview in such a way as to incorporate the challenge faced - or else to simply discount how applicabile the challenge is to the validty of their world view (say 'it doesn't count'). This is done in an effort to reduce the intellectual discomfort (cognitive dissonance) between what you hold to be true and thenew experiences that challenge those beliefs.
I personally have experienced some negative emotional responses including depression (not diagnosed or anything, I just recognise the symptoms) as a result of logical examination of metaphysical concepts such as 'God', however I personally felt that such emotional states, while valid as responses to something that I felt had dramastically altered my worldview and left me with a situation where I was unable to establish an objective intellectual equivalence for the subjective emotional beliefs that I had previously held as far as the 'meaning' or 'purpose' of living and so forth. My way around this was to examine the 'need' for such a purpose, to determine if it is a purely logical need or whether or not it is emotional; my conclusion was that it was an intellectual expression of a subconcious attempt to mitigate an emotional state of uncertainty - I was attempting to find an 'answer' to quell my uncertainty about something, which I believed to be about the existence of myself in this universe, i.e. why do I exist, and alludes to a broader question why do we exist.
Once again, to examine each of these from a purely logical perspective and from an emotional perspective: Logically speaking there is no 'need' for us to exist unless there is something that 'needed' it (such as a god, an alien designer or something else); from an emotional perspective I found this vastly unsettling.
My eventual response, was to simply embrace the intellectual explanation and shift my world view sufficiently to reduce that negative emotional turmoil - I simply accepted that there was no need for a 'purpose' or something similar, it was not easy, but it was simple.
