Emotions, God, and Atheism

[utunumsint]

I was thinking the other day about this.

Catholics say they experience all these emotions when worshiping God or practicing out faith.

• Contrition for sins committed against God’s law.
• Love for God.
• Giving glory to God.
• Having a hatred for sin.
• etc…

All of these emotions presupose the existence of God, the truth of moral law, the goodness of God. For a believer, the cause of the emotions exists in the reality of the object of these emotions. The emotions do not exists in and for themselves, but are created by the objects that excite these emotions.

Athiests and moral relativists deny the existence of God and the existence of moral absolutes, therefore they must find different way to explain the motivation for these emotions. They not only deny the existence of God, but the validity of the emotional experiences of the believer. This means that an athiest is not only trying to convince the believer that God does not exist, but that the emotions instilled by the object of their belief are also false.

As I contemplated this, I started wondering if our emotional (or affective, maybe this broader term could be more helpful) response to God, cannot be used as an apologetical tool to help non believers find the truth in our faith?

I have always found that in studying athiest philosphers and luminaries, that their lives were miserable (I understand this is a generalization, but I believe it is justified). That there was something truly “unredemed” about their emotional lives. Almost crippled. Could this be a necessary concequence of a view point that does away with moral absolutes, and renders life meaningless, or at least renders the search for meaning somewhat arbitrary (whatever floats your boat)?

I have always heard priests and catholic theologians say that Catholics are happiest because they are catholic. It is a source of happiness that exceeds that of non believers. Can it be proved that this is the case?

God bless,
Ut

 

[crowonsnow]

You’d have to define happiness for purposes of this discussion. And how do you propose to quantify it?

I really don’t know if my happiness springs from the fact that I am superstition free or if my freedom from superstition springs from happiness.

Go for it.

 

[utunumsint]

You’d have to define happiness for purposes of this discussion. And how do you propose to quantify it?

I really don’t know if my happiness springs from the fact that I am superstition free or if my freedom from superstition springs from happiness.

Go for it.

Well what about comparing the the suicide rates between religious and non religious people? Or the cases of clinical depression? Or even the relative financial success?

I believe I saw a study such as this done recently. I’ll poke around for it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[wcknight]

How can anyone qualify an emotion as either true or false ? Someone who is happy whether based on a false premise or true one is still happy. IF they later learn they were wrong, they may feel feel differently, but while believing the premise is true, the emotions are real and can not be distinguished from one where the premise is absolutely true.

You may be happy now while you believe your premise of atheism is true but will you be happy when you find out that your suppositions are false.

The difference between failure in either of our premises are the consequences. IF it comes to pass that atheists are correct, we superstitious folks have nothing to lose. BUT if it comes to be that we are correct, you atheists have EVERYTHING to lose.

We have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while you have nothingness to gain and everything to lose. That’s not a very fair gamble by most peoples measure.

 

[Eucharisted]

Love for God is not an emotion.

 

[utunumsint]

Love for God is not an emotion.

I dissagree. Love for God includes emotion, and cannot be divorced from it. This kind of thinking betrays an Aritotelian bias against the affective part of our humanity.

If the goal of our religion is happiness, then I believe happiness cannot be experienced without emotion.

As for the other poster, could it not be said that there may be a qualitative difference between the happiness engendered by the beliefs of the Athiest, and that engendered by the beliefs of a believer?

God bless,
Ut

P.S. By the way, I’m not limiting emotional states to “feeling good”, but also to feelings of loyalty, honor, reverence, etc… all of which can be felt in states of great physical pain, and suffering.

 

[utunumsint]

For example, Jesus says it is from the heart that evil and wicked actions flow (I believe this is from Matthew). He does not say from the mind. The Jews believed that the heart was the seat of the soul. How is it that a redeemed heart is different from an unredeemed heart?

Augustine himself says our hearts are restless until they rest in God. Bonaventure, in the Itinerum Mentis Ad Deum places the affective part of our nature as the final link between God and man, not the intellect because the intellect is grounded in the finite. Pascal also says the heart has reasons for belief that the mind cannot even comprehend.

The Catholic Church celebrates the sacred heart of Jesus. This is not a symbol of pure disembodied intellect, but includes a heart full of feeling and love.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dameedna]

The difference between failure in either of our premises are the consequences. IF it comes to pass that atheists are correct, we superstitious folks have nothing to lose. BUT if it comes to be that we are correct, you atheists have EVERYTHING to lose.

Pascals wager. Even he didn’t think it was a very good wager.

You seem to be under the impression that athiests are making a choice against God. They are not. They have no problem with God, IF god existed. They aren’t rejecting God. They are looking at the evidence and at what people say about God(religion), and they cannot find anything truthful in it. A claim to truth, does not actually make one correct.

Do you really think an athiest wakes up every day and goes, oh GOODY, today is the day I can be wiped off the face of the planet and no longer exist. TODAY is the day I can participate in activities that are ultimately meaningless. Oh goody.

No, that’s not what they do.

An Athiest puts truth above belief and if something is not true, they cannot lie to themselves about it. It doesn’t work. To them, it would be like attempting to go back and believe in the tooth fairy. Once the belief is gone, it’s gone.

To an athiest, it does not feel like “choice”(regardless of wether other’s claim it is their choice). It simply happened, when they chose truth over what they wanted to believe. That is why athiests say they “lack” faith, or “lack” a belief in God, NOT that they “believe” there is no God. Rather than trying to prove that their athiesm is a belief, why not listen to what they are actually telling you. It is a complete and utter lack of any belief that a deity exists, and it isn’t really a choice for them, once they placed truth as their “higher power”. It’s the same way you feel about Zeus, or Thor. There’s just nothing there.

You can disagree with an athiest about what is ultimately true, but I don’t think you will ever really understand where they are coming from because you make assumptions about who they are rather than just sit and listen and try to accept what they are telling you.

And no, this “emotional” argument won’t work, anymore than pascals wager. Emotions toward something can be real, even if that “something” doesn’t exist. Kids get awfully excited over Santa. Is he real?

 

[Dameedna]

For example, Jesus says it is from the heart that evil and wicked actions flow (I believe this is from Matthew). He does not say from the mind. The Jews believed that the heart was the seat of the soul. How is it that a redeemed heart is different from an unredeemed heart?

Augustine himself says our hearts are restless until they rest in God. Bonaventure, in the Itinerum Mentis Ad Deum places the affective part of our nature as the final link between God and man, not the intellect because the intellect is grounded in the finite. Pascal also says the heart has reasons for belief that the mind cannot even comprehend.

The Catholic Church celebrates the sacred heart of Jesus. This is not a symbol of pure disembodied intellect, but includes a heart full of feeling and love.

God bless,
Ut

Humans did not understand back in that period of time, that individuals had an organ called a Brain. When a person felt “bad” they got a twist in their Gut, and this was believed to be the thinking centre of the human.

When you say it’s the heart not the mind, then what are you actually saying? Heart is just a euphanism, but for what exactly?

 

[utunumsint]

Humans did not understand back in that period of time, that individuals had an organ called a Brain. When a person felt “bad” they got a twist in their Gut, and this was believed to be the thinking centre of the human.

When you say it’s the heart not the mind, then what are you actually saying? Heart is just a euphanism, but for what exactly?

And no, this “emotional” argument won’t work, anymore than pascals wager. Emotions toward something can be real, even if that “something” doesn’t exist. Kids get awfully excited over Santa. Is he real?

The Biblical authors did not try to artificially separate our thinking faculties from our emotional faculties. This is something that we’ve inherited from Greek philosophy. As I tried to point out, at least in Christian mystical writings, the emotive aspect has equal place with the intellect. It is the faculty that draws the believer into the bond of mystical union with God in a way that the intellect cannot.

Having studied mystical experience for several years across multiple religions, I’ve seen that there is a depth and range of these mystics experience and that these experiences have no parallel amongst Athiests.

These experiences cannot be reduced to meer fantasy (e.g. excitment at the coming of Santa Claus) for the very reason that no fantasy can produce the same level of experience and changes in character that these mystical experiences do. Christian mysticism in particular is distinct from Eastern Buddhist mysticism in that it affirms an object that becomes the focal point and instigator of powerful emotive experiences that have real transformative power. Their experiences change their lives. And the mystics would also emphatically say that what they experience is from God, and not something that they have fabricated because of excessive emotional excitement. What they experience certainly has an emotional dimention, but it is the emotional dimension produced by awe, an overwhelming feeling of being loved, protected, sheltered, etc… Included with this is the feeling of connectedness to all people.

God bless,
Ut

 

[JonW]

Dameedna is right about many atheists. I would hardly say that’s true of all or even most of them, however. I would caution that most atheists are actually disaffected adolescents rebelling against something they don’t understand.

However, as Dameedna points out, most longtime atheists are of the sort he describes. I was one myself, and the idea of a lack of belief rather than a positive belief that something does not exist is precisely how I saw it. I liked to analogize the situation with part of the integer line. Think of the numbers 1, 0, and -1. For purposes of argument, assign the number 1 to belief in a deity. Then the atheist’s position would not be assigned the number -1, as so many theists might think. It would be assigned the number 0. Just an illustrative way to think of it.

I would also say that happiness could very easily be construed subjectively. Many long-suffering saints might not be considered outwardly happy because of their pain and suffering and sacrafice. But the truth is that they were bubbling with God’s grace. I also think that while happiness is impossible without God, it is quite possible to be happy throughout life without knowing that God has any hand in it whatsoever.

One staunch and respectable (intellectually) atheist who was very clearly not happy most of his life was Bertrand Russell.

On the other hand, one staunch and very respectable (in every way) atheist , a philosophical hero of mine from way back, who very clearly was happy throughout his life was W. V. Quine.

Obviously, as Catholics we think that happiness flows from God’s grace, but from the human perspective, I think it has everything to do with how you approach the world. Quine was a dedicated family man who gave of himself freely to his family, friends, and community. His character was marked by dedication, committment, openness in love, and charity. He also happened to have a huge intellect which bore him many great things in life, such as recognition from peers, respect, etc. Russell was a self-consumed, arrogant, loathsome, aristocratic, self-centered, exploitative emotional buffoon who took advantage of his family and friends without the slightest pang of conscience. He was also a huge intellect who won great praise from his peers and continues to do so, quite rightly in my opinion. He’s also a tragic figure because he could have been a really great person. He had the capacity. But he made a conscious choice to put his interests before anything. Whence his lifelong misery. Both had quite similar ideas about God, I think, although where Quine basically left it alone Russell attacked it with vigor (unsurprisingly).

So I don’t think happiness comes from the conscious knowledge of God’s grace in one’s life. But I do think it comes from His grace.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[Dameedna]

.These experiences cannot be reduced to meer fantasy (e.g. excitment at the coming of Santa Claus) for the very reason that no fantasy can produce the same level of experience and changes in character that these mystical experiences do.

This statement that fantasy cannot induce this level of experience is fundamentally flawed imo.

It is no different than me saying, the fact that the experience happened, SHOW’s that it can come from fantasy, not the other way around.

The experience happened. The change happened.

That it came from a “god” is not a fact, it is a hypothesis.

A idea, or statment like this cannot prove itself.

Christian mysticism in particular is distinct from Eastern Buddhist mysticism in that it affirms an object that becomes the focal point and instigator of powerful emotive experiences that have real transformative power. Their experiences change their lives. And the mystics would also emphatically say that what they experience is from God, and not something that they have fabricated because of excessive emotional excitement. What they experience certainly has an emotional dimention, but it is the emotional dimension produced by awe, an overwhelming feeling of being loved, protected, sheltered, etc… Included with this is the feeling of connectedness to all people.

What will happen, when a laboratory will be able to induce these same experiences in the brain, without an actual event occuring in the persons life?(this has happened already to a degree)

If they ever did this, would you still believe the experiences come from a God.?

Having said all that, I don’t negate the idea entirely as I’ve had my rare moments where things don’t seem explainable, but it is still a possibly something purely physical(not spiritual) is occuring as a result of an idea, not because it comes from a God.

Some experiences can be overwhelming. But that’s all you can really say about it, with any truth.

 

[Dameedna]

Dameedna is right about many atheists. I would hardly say that’s true of all or even most of them, however. I would caution that most atheists are actually disaffected adolescents rebelling against something they don’t understand.

This is pretty offensive, and it’s really not true.

I’ll throw one idea out there at you, and that is there are different types of non-believers. I have heard way too many people claim they are “atheists” or they used to be “atheists” or that they almost chose “atheism”.

None of them are anything like an atheist, but unfortunately we are all lumped together under the same bucket. It really, REALLY is unfortunate.

I think there are two distinct groups. Those that are governed by nothing other than their own will, and the atheists and agnostics, who are a lot less populous than people probably think.

I won’t go further than that, on this thread however comments like this about atheists are just so patrionizing, is it any wonder they often get so angry at the religious?

 

[JonW]

This is pretty offensive, and it’s really not true.

I’ll throw one idea out there at you, and that is there are different types of non-believers. I have heard way too many people claim they are “atheists” or they used to be “atheists” or that they almost chose “atheism”.

None of them are anything like an atheist, but unfortunately we are all lumped together under the same bucket. It really, REALLY is unfortunate.

I think there are two distinct groups. Those that are governed by nothing other than their own will, and the atheists and agnostics, who are a lot less populous than people probably think.

I won’t go further than that, on this thread however comments like this about atheists are just so patrionizing, is it any wonder they often get so angry at the religious?

Offensive? Atheism is an idea, not your skin color. Get over yourself bub. You were obviously too offended to read my post very carefully. I will say that inasmuch as the disaffected adolescent lacks the competency to formulate a coherent worldview, he is not in that sense a serious atheist, which is why I distinguished between the two kinds in my first post. It is you who is overgeneralizing with what actually is an offensive remark about how all non-atheists are governed only by their wills. I was a full fledged serious atheist for my whole adult life until a couple of years ago. I adopted the default position that you espoused earlier in the thread, and I was trying to explain to my fellow theists that most serious atheists are not believers, but that they lack belief. I know very well the position/s of real atheism, and I have no beef with them. I think they are correct as far as they go, as a matter of fact. I can’t be an atheist now for the same reason that I can’t lack belief in my fiancee. It is that simple. I hope my having had an experience in life that you haven’t isn’t too offensive to your delicate sensiblities…

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[JDaniel]

You seem to be under the impression that athiests are making a choice against God. They are not. They have no problem with God, IF god existed. They aren’t rejecting God. They are looking at the evidence and at what people say about God(religion), and they cannot find anything truthful in it. A claim to truth, does not actually make one correct.

Well now, let’s see. There’s another thread dealing with the Anselmian ontological proof of God’s existence, as well as the fact that warpspeedpetey has proved it scientifically. Yet, ultimately, when an atheist is asked for proof or argument, the atheist rests upon only one:

“I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know.” We should call this the proof of God’s inexistence from condescension.

Do you really think an athiest wakes up every day and goes, oh GOODY, today is the day I can be wiped off the face of the planet and no longer exist. TODAY is the day I can participate in activities that are ultimately meaningless. Oh goody.

To a more or less degree.

No, that’s not what they do.

We disagree.

An Athiest puts truth above belief and if something is not true, they cannot lie to themselves about it. It doesn’t work. To them, it would be like attempting to go back and believe in the tooth fairy. Once the belief is gone, it’s gone.

No, an atheist posits the aforementioned argument once he cannot produce a viable counter-argument to those of Aquinas and Anselm. In fact, once the atheist says that he understands what God is by virtue of God’s attributes and definition, he must say either “logic is a pile of rubbish” or “I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know”.

To an athiest, it does not feel like “choice”(regardless of wether other’s claim it is their choice). It simply happened, when they chose truth over what they wanted to believe. That is why athiests say they “lack” faith, or “lack” a belief in God, NOT that they “believe” there is no God. Rather than trying to prove that their athiesm is a belief, why not listen to what they are actually telling you. It is a complete and utter lack of any belief that a deity exists, and it isn’t really a choice for them, once they placed truth as their “higher power”. It’s the same way you feel about Zeus, or Thor. There’s just nothing there.

No, what an atheist MUST do is understand (provided he can think) that God is: “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, and then, DENY His existence. That, Dameedna, is a choice.

You can disagree with an athiest about what is ultimately true, but I don’t think you will ever really understand where they are coming from because you make assumptions about who they are rather than just sit and listen and try to accept what they are telling you.

How many times must we hear the same old argument? I was an agnostic once, albeit very briefly, but, realized the Thomistic and Anselmian proofs are irrefutable. Seven hundred years of attempts, and , none stuck, except “I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know”? I think that atheism springs from either vincible ignorance or invincible ignorance.

And no, this “emotional” argument won’t work, anymore than pascals wager. Emotions toward something can be real, even if that “something” doesn’t exist. Kids get awfully excited over Santa. Is he real?

So, adults who think are merely children before the age of reason?

JD

 

[crowonsnow]

Offensive? Atheism is an idea, not your skin color. Get over yourself bub. You were obviously too offended to read my post very carefully. I will say that inasmuch as the disaffected adolescent lacks the competency to formulate a coherent worldview, he is not in that sense a serious atheist…

And the same can and must be said of theism and theists, that they are mostly disaffected adolescents as well, rebelling against something they equally do not understand. Most theists are not serious theists. They are simply products of their culture.

 

[JonW]

And the same can and must be said of theism and theists, that they are mostly disaffected adolescents as well, rebelling against something they equally do not understand. Most theists are not serious theists. They are simply products of their culture.

Since most theists meet none of the criteria listed … nice try.

I find it ammusing that non-thesits on this forum persist in misinterpreting my words when I try to defend them while pointing out a fairly innocuous fact about their worldview, which doesn’t bear at all on the veracity of their position anyway. Meanwhile, they never tire of accusing us of similar misinterpretation. How about using some of those critical reading skills that serious atheists compliment themselves on?

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[Dameedna]

Offensive? Atheism is an idea, not your skin color. Get over yourself bub.

It is the offensive christians, that turn most people away from even contemplating the idea in the first place. Calling me a bub/child may make you feel better, but it is simply another reason why I am glad I’m not a believer in the first place. Any religion that encourages you to be patrionizing, is a problem imo.

 

[Dameedna]

And the same can and must be said of theism and theists, that they are mostly disaffected adolescents as well, rebelling against something they equally do not understand. Most theists are not serious theists. They are simply products of their culture.

I completely agree.

 

[Dameedna]

Since most theists meet none of the criteria listed … nice try.

Since most theists fit your forumla as well, his statment is accurate.

See I can do that too. Make a statment as though it is fact.