The Inevitable Impasse (for Atheists)

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't know ... emotionalism without logic would be a pretty good definition of emotional illness, wouldn't it? We need logic and skepticism to keep us aligned with reality, and appropriately 'proportioned'. A good example might be to imagine someone driving an automobile 'emotionally' rather than logically.

"How DARE you tell ME to stop!!" *smile*

Ah, but the same can be said of logic. Pure logic without emotion and creativity is cold and shallow. It is like someone having sex logically instead of emotionally.

"How DARE you stop?!"

 

[lilithu]

I don't know ... emotionalism without logic would be a pretty good definition of emotional illness, wouldn't it? We need logic and skepticism to keep us aligned with reality, and appropriately 'proportioned'. A good example might be to imagine someone driving an automobile 'emotionally' rather than logically.

"How DARE you tell ME to stop!!" *smile*

I don't think that's what GC meant. It's not that people who see things through the lens of emotion are completely irrational, or that people who sees things thru the lens of reason are completely devoid of emotion, for that matter. It's a matter of where one places one's emphasis, or how one approaches things "naturally."

I just did a workshop on Myers Briggs personality types and how it affects spirituality. (For those of you unfamiliar with Myers Briggs, see here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39115) Thinkers are supposedly more inclined towards rational explanation and understanding. Feelers are supposedly more inclined towards feelings of gratitude and transcendence. But those of us who are "thinkers" pointed out that many of us also feel gratitude and transcendence. And it was obvious to all that those of us who are feelers are capable of rational thought. It's not either or. It's the primary way in which one approaches the world, but not the only way.

Frankly, I would be as afraid of someone who couldn't feel empathy and compassion as I would someone who couldn't think rationally.

 

[PureX]

Ah, but the same can be said of logic. Pure logic without emotion and creativity is cold and shallow. It is like someone having sex logically instead of emotionally.

"How DARE you stop?!"

Very good point. Logic is often not logical at all, without emotion to guide it. (It was strictly logical, after all, for all those murderous dictators in history to eliminate their opposition as soon as they got the power to do so.)

 

[lunamoth]

Very good point. Logic is often not logical at all, without emotion to guide it. (It was strictly logical, after all, for all those murderous dictators in history to eliminate their opposition as soon as they got the power to do so.)

I agree. I've often thought that no matter how tempting it sounds, an ethic based only on what is most logical would quickly create hell on earth.

 

[PureX]

Frankly, I would be as afraid of someone who couldn't feel empathy and compassion as I would someone who couldn't think rationally.

Very good point. Me too.

 

[PureX]

So we definitely need to use logic and emotion to each limit the other ... But when is it OK to deny logic in favor of an emotion, or to deny an emotion in favor of logic? This is often what it comes down to when atheists and theists debate. The theist wants to "err" on the side of emotion, while the atheist wants to "err" on the side of logic. (Neither believes they are erring, but neither can prove their right, either. So presumably they both know that they could be wrong.)

 

[Random]

Perhaps the impasse arises because the atheist and the theist reach the same intellectual plateau but fail to recognize the fact in the heat of debate.

 

[gnomon]

Maybe it's just me, but I think debate is largely useless way as a way to change people's minds.

Brute force, bribery or blackmail are usually more effective.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I think Guitar's Cry and I are on the same page with on this. Atheistic arguments help my understanding of the Divine evolve. Or, rather, they did. Atheists need new arguments; the old ones no longer work.

 

[Storm]

When debating with theists, there will always be what I call "The Inevitable Impasse," a "hump" that we atheists cannot seem to get over quickly enough to chase after the fleeing theist.

I admit we are asking a lot from theists when we force them to look at their beliefs and the logical fallacies within them, especially because these beliefs are their core beliefs which comprise their identities, but my question is this:

We are advocating for identity deconstruction when we debate. Inevitably, there will be an impasse where the deconstruction just cannot go on, which leads to the complete psychological defense of flight for most theists. When you've reached this impasse, what have you done to try to overcome it? Has it worked?

:areyoucra Wow. The arrogance here is astonishing. "Chase after the fleeing theist"? "Psychological defense of flight"?

Personally, I see debate as an exchange of ideas, trying to help someone to understand an alien mode of thought, such as God-belief for atheists, or why I find the Christian God unworthy of worship. I'm certainly not "advocating for identity deconstruction." If the other side isn't willing to consider my arguments, I get bored and move on.

Maybe the theists you're referring to weren't fleeing in terror from your overwhelming logic, but simply tired of your superior attitude.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think there is some validity to this idea of an "inevitable impasse" when critical examination is brought to bear upon ANY set of beliefs to which a person has a strong psychological or emotional attachment. A person can, of course, have a strong emotional attachment in any set of beliefs, including atheism or a scientific theory. *In general*, however, I think this likely is the case more often with religious people than non-religious people.

When I say "religious" people, I don't necessarily mean all theists, I mean people who pray, go to church (or temple or whatever), join a mission, etc. I think it is generally true that religious people have a great deal invested emotionally in their religious beliefs. That is because the the very things that make them "religious"--gathering together in a community, repeating chants and singing songs, performing rituals and taking part in celebrations--all serve to reinforce the beliefs. People are taught at a very young age that all things good come from their religious beliefs--happiness, forgiveness, salvation, community, family, righteousness, etc. It is reinforced on a regular basis that (say) the existence of God is NOT just a fact of life, like the existence of the Sun, or the sky; no, the existence of God is ESSENTIAL for a person (you included!) to be happy, or imporant, or good, and if you believe in God like we do, then you get to be part of our wonderful community, and sing with us and have celebrations, and so forth.

Contrast this with a non-religious belief, say, the belief that light travels through a medium called the "ether". Near the turn of the 20th century, many physicists believed in the ether, which made a lot of sense at the time, before it was discredited by careful experiments. When it finally was discredited, no one said that life had no meaning anymore, there were no inspiring songs or ceremonies or celebrations that had to be abandoned; no one said that you can't be good without the ether, or you can't be saved, or forgiven, or go to heaven, or be part of a caring community who look out for each other, or that you can't be considered part of the same group as many of your family and friends, if you don't believe in the ether. No one felt a loss of identity, no one lamented, "The ether was a myth! Now I don't know what to believe anymore!"

But that is often precisely what devoutly religious people do if they become convinced that their beliefs are myths. You can offer a critique of a person's beliefs all you like, but even if those critiques are valid, if that person has enough invested in their beliefs you will never convince them. They aren't dispassionate judges of the evidence, they have a lot to lose (in their minds) if their beliefs are incorrect.

What I'm saying is of course true of anyone who has a lot invested in their beliefs. However--and I say this sincerely with no intention of being disparaging--I think this is less likely to be true, statistically, with an atheist than a theist. I for one will not see my entire world come crashing down if Apollo exists, I won't think there's no point in living anymore if there turns out to be a heaven, and so forth.

 

[Mister_T]

Maybe the theists you're referring to weren't fleeing in terror from your overwhelming logic, but simply tired of your superior attitude

That's what I was thinking.

Who's fleeing? I think the OP might be suprised to find that there aren't too many "fleeing" theists here.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Just to be clear, this same impasse exists for theists as well as atheists.

Yes, I see a rather simple road out of the mire: humility, expression, and acceptance of diversity.

Notice I did not say tolerance, politeness, or silence.

I was unable to accept other people's beliefs until I found humility... humility enough to realize that I don't know what's true. Now I just focus on expressing my emotions and experiences, which cannot be wrong, since I'm 100% certain I perceived them

I don't see fruitful conversation as very difficult. It is only difficult because we insist on making every believe what we believe.

Then again, you may disagree