Irrational motives for disbelieving in a God

[Night FM]

This is not arguing for the existence of a God. I'm merely making the argument that, since people are emotional beings, many people may likely disbelieve in God for irrational reasons than rational ones. Examples might include:

*Fear of the afterlife or not wanting to have to existentially challenge themselves by speculating about life after death

*Negative experiences with religion or a specific religion (e.x. wanting there to not be a God simply out of spite against followers of a God)

*Not wanting to be morally accountable to anyone other than themselves

*Not wanting to have to think outside of a specific paradigm (e.x. a materialistic paradigm) due to it being intellectually difficult to them or foreign to them

(And yes, while you can argue that the burden shouldn't be on individuals to believe in something by default, this argument presumes that the person would absolutely disbelieve in a God regardless of what facts or arguments were presented to them).

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[iNow]

I equally must have irrational motives for disbelieving in flying unicorns that shit rainbow sprinkles, and irrational motives for disbelieving in leprechauns. They rest on the same evidentiary footing as the thousands of gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology, and also whatever flavor of god you happen to believe in… the one that’s apparently led you to come here and litter every thread with proselytization and evangelism. 

[Night FM]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

I equally must have irrational motives for disbelieving in flying unicorns that shit rainbow sprinkles, and irrational motives for disbelieving in leprechauns.

That's similar to the "Santa Claus" argument, and is meaningless, since it doesn't describe what even makes a leprechaun a leprechaun, or why believing in a God is the equivalent of believing in a leprechaun.

One could say that "believing in aliens" is the same as "believing that Marvin the Martian actually exists", but that wouldn't be an accurate description of what it is like to believe in aliens, or what aliens would look like if they actually existed.

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

They rest on the same evidentiary footing as the thousands of gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology,

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

and also whatever flavor of god you happen to believe in… the one that’s apparently led you to come here and litter every thread with proselytization and evangelism. 

This is conflating "mythology about gods" with the attributes that make a god a god to begin with, and presumes that everything which has been referred to as a "god" (e.x. polytheistic deities versus monotheistic deities) is the same merely because it is referred to by the word "god". It's been argued that the belief in a Supreme Being is culturally universal regardless of any specific mythology.

Again, there is "mythology about aliens", such as the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. But I wouldn't argue that the existence of "myths about aliens" rules out the possibility of alien life.

The rather tired "no evidence" argument just falls back either on a materialistic paradigm or pop-Scientism (e.x. that anything not currently considered "established science" cannot be true or should not be believed), which is epistemologically absurd - as per my thread in the philosophy subform about how the truth value of something isn't determined by whether or not it is currently accepted as scientific fact, and how believing in something because "one was taught" it is scientific fact isn't the same as believing in something on the basis of evidence or rational investigation.

(e.x. By this poor logic, there would have been "no reason" for Newton to believe in his hypothesis about gravity simply because it wasn't considered established science during his day and age and wasn't taught in schools, and there would therefore be no scientific progress).

This isn't evangelism, because I'm not making an affirmative argument for the existence of a specific God. I'm merely arguing that some people (e.x. of the "strong atheist" variety may disbelieve in a God for irrational reasons rather than "rational" ones).

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Night FM said:

why believing in a God is the equivalent of believing in a leprechaun.

The number of people who share the belief has no relevance on its truth or validity.

2 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I wouldn't argue that the existence of "myths about aliens" rules out the possibility of alien life.

Nor would I because we have evidence for life on planets, and understanding of the chemistry which leads to life, and the sheer magnitude of planets across the cosmos makes it rather likely that others have life too.

You've put forward a false equivalence between your magical omnipotent being (which is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence) and “possible life elsewhere.”

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, Night FM said:

This is not arguing for the existence of a God. I'm merely making the argument that, since people are emotional beings, many people may likely disbelieve in God for irrational reasons than rational ones. Examples might include:

*Fear of the afterlife or not wanting to have to existentially challenge themselves by speculating about life after death

*Negative experiences with religion or a specific religion (e.x. wanting there to not be a God simply out of spite against followers of a God)

*Not wanting to be morally accountable to anyone other than themselves

I don't have any irrational motives for not believing in gods. At the most basic level, we've seen how Iron Age peoples thought their gods were responsible for many phenomena. Then, over the intervening centuries, we've seen rational explanations replace those mystical beliefs. In the end, there's no real questions I have that aren't answered by the knowledge humans have accumulated. If the churches were wrong about so much, maybe they were wrong about it all.

I also don't think of it as "disbelief". I'm not actively refusing to believe in gods. I'm not reluctant to accept them. I simply see no evidence of them, so they don't qualify to be included in the way I explain anything.

The idea that any atheist doesn't want there to be gods "simply out of spite against followers of a God" is laughable. Where's the reasoning behind that?

Fear of the challenge of wild-ass guesswork about life after death? Please.

The part about morals is actually quite insulting, given how morally unaccountable the churches have been throughout history. If you want to discuss morality here, I'd be happy to show you how weak your faith is in that regard.

 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The rather tired "no evidence" argument just falls back either on a materialistic paradigm or pop-Scientism

Or, just a desire to not accept things as true without reason. Sure, it’s possible gods exist.  Come back and chat with me when there’s reasons beyond mere faith to assume so. 

Edited August 29 by iNow

[Night FM]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

The number of people who share the belief has no relevance on its truth or validity.

We're not talking about the number of people. This argument seems to be assuming that the characteristics of a God would be identical to those portrayed in some cultural myth about the God (e.x. such as pop cultural depictions of the Biblical god as a "bearded man in the sky" despite this depiction not deriving from how God is depicted as an immaterial being in the text of Bible.)

So, to me, this is essentially a strawman and would be the akin to saying that a person who believes in alien life is the equivalent of believing that Marvin the Martian actually exists in real life, or that aliens, when discovered, will look like Marvin the Martian.

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Night FM said:

the characteristics of a God would be identical to those portrayed in some pop cultural myth

Exactly 

[Night FM]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Or, just a desire to not accept things as true without reason. Sure, it’s possible gods exist.  Come back and chat with me when there’s reasons beyond mere faith to assume so. 

I don't find this argument palatable, since all axioms are accepted on "faith" and can be supported with reason.

For example, the axiom that "science is good" has to be accepted, and while most people would accept this on the basis of "common sense" alone, there are individuals such as anarcho-primitivists like John Zerzon who reject this axiom and believe science and technology to be a "bad thing".

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Exactly 

Okay... my argument is that this isn't the case, and most popular depictions (such as of the Biblical God) don't have any relation to the source text. (e.x. The Bible states that God created male and female in His own image, so while God is referred to as He, and often depicted in the likeness of a human, God is beyond any physical sex or gender as per the Bible).

And this still doesn't define what makes a leprechaun a leprechaun, it just dismisses a belief in leprechauns based on "common sense" (and presumes that the same "common sense" can be applied to dismissing the existence of a God).

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Night FM said:

all axioms are accepted on "faith" and can be supported with reason

You said faith, but you meant trust. I trust that the sun will appear over the horizon in the morning. I trust that I will bleed when slashed with a knife. You must have faith to believe in god or gods. Try not to conflate the two.

7 minutes ago, Night FM said:

there are individuals such as anarcho-primitivists like John Zerzon who reject this axiom and believe science and technology to be a "bad thing".

Good for John. He’s free to believe any absurd ridiculous thing he wants, much like you. 

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, Night FM said:

the axiom that "science is good" has to be accepted,

That does not make a lot of sense. Folks would rather say that aspects of science are useful within a given realm and provide the evidence for it. "Good" is a value judgement that only makes sense by adding premises. For instance, you can say that saving lives via medicine is "good". From there you could infer that medical sciences therefore serves a "good" purpose. But there is not reason to simply accept a statement without any evidence. 

[Night FM]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The part about morals is actually quite insulting, given how morally unaccountable the churches have been throughout history. If you want to discuss morality here, I'd be happy to show you how weak your faith is in that regard.

 

I'm talking about moral accountability. Someone could essentially believe "they" are their own God and not accountable to anyone other than themselves. This would be much harder to rationalize if they believe in a Supreme Being.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

That does not make a lot of sense. Folks would rather say that aspects of science are useful within a given realm and provide the evidence for it. "Good" is a value judgement that only makes sense by adding premises. For instance, you can say that saving lives via medicine is "good". From there you could infer that medical sciences therefore serves a "good" purpose. But there is not reason to simply accept a statement without any evidence. 

Then maybe we could get into the arguments about solipsism. Solipsism can't be "disproven, but one would simply have to accept on axiom that solipsism is false in order for reality to make sense.

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That does not make a lot of sense. Folks would rather say that aspects of science are useful within a given realm and provide the evidence for it. "Good" is a value judgement that only makes sense by adding premises. For instance, you can say that saving lives via medicine is "good". From there you could infer that medical sciences therefore serves a "good" purpose. But there is not reason to simply accept a statement without any evidence. 

Right, though my understanding is that science and understanding the universe is primarily an end in and of itself, and not solely a means to an end (e.x. saving lives from medicine). Humans for most of history existed as hunter-gatherers, so they didn't need advanced science and technology just to "survive" for most of history. Science, to my knowledge, fits into higher levels of need on Maslow's hierarchy, though it does have practical uses as well. Essentially my argument is that most people, particularly in modern society would have to accept the axiom that science is good for its own sake, or else one could just as easily take the anarcho-primitivist approach and argue that we would be better off returning to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. 

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Right, though my understanding is that science and understanding the universe is primarily an end in and of itself, and not solely a means to an end

Science in itself is a essentially a methodologies that are used to create an understanding of certain phenomena. Any value judgement to be made would need to be contextualized. 

 

23 minutes ago, Night FM said:

umans for most of history existed as hunter-gatherers, so they didn't need advanced science and technology just to "survive" for most of history.

While not advanced, they clearly have created an understanding on some level of their world and figured out consistent elements and taught them to the next generation. Some animals show similar abilities. One could argue what level of systematic application some form of empiricism have to have in order to call it a science, and I am sure, opinions will differ. Regardless how we want to call it, I am still unsure why folks would need to accept that axiom that science is good by itself. You might believe it, or not. It has no impact on  science itself. 

I should specify: I am not in which context you intend to use term "axiom" (and what point you wanted to make). I presume in an epistemological sense, but a) there are different forms and b) I don't really see how your example fits any of them. The closest is probably a pragmatist approach, but then it would probably more accurate to state that "science works". Rather than trying to shoehorn a judgement into it. But Eise and others will be better in dissecting this kind of argument.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

This is not arguing for the existence of a God. I'm merely making the argument that, since people are emotional beings, many people may likely disbelieve in God for irrational reasons than rational ones.

The reasons for believing are also irrational. 

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't have any irrational motives for not believing in gods

I think not believing is not the same as disbelieving. A lack of belief can be based on no evidence existing, but an active disbelief requires either positive evidence or is irrational.

[MigL]

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

since people are emotional beings, many people may likely disbelieve in God for irrational reasons than rational ones

I believe you have it backwards.
It is rational, thinking people who have come to the conclusion that 'faith' is just an irrational emotion based on hope.
Hope that some higher power will deal with your problems because either through ignorance, incompetence, or tragedy, you are incapable of doing so yourself.

That being said, I don't begrudge people who need religion/faith; some people need a 'crutch' to deal with life's problems.
I and many others, don't need such an emotional crutch, so why do religious people 'judge' me, and say I am destined to spend the afterlife, another imaginary, unverifiable, urrational concept in a place called hell  ? 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I think not believing is not the same as disbelieving. A lack of belief can be based on no evidence existing, but an active disbelief requires either positive evidence or is irrational.

I agree, I said the same thing later in that post. Disbelief is actually more like a religious belief to me, whereas not believing is accepting the lack of evidence as a sign that there's a better explanation. If not believing is a religious belief, then bald is a hair color.

[TheVat]

11 hours ago, Night FM said:

Essentially my argument is that most people, particularly in modern society would have to accept the axiom that science is good for its own sake, or else one could just as easily take the anarcho-primitivist approach and argue that we would be better off returning to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. 

This seems to conflate science, in the pure sense of empirical inquiry, with technology - a set of particular applications of science.  Science in itself does not preclude choosing to live a primitvist lifestyle (indeed one could easily envision scenarios where a society developed advanced ecological knowledge and then based on that deliberately abandoned a hi-tech way of life).  People derive values based on scientific knowledge, but science itself is value neutral - it is just an array of empirical methods and techniques for testing (experiments).  Humans, as moral agents, still have to develop valuations on whatever knowledge or craft is derived from science.  This is why "scientism" is largely a straw man term used by people who have an ideological agenda.