Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

This subject arose in another thread. It was claimed that psychological (I’ll call P for brevity) problems is one cause for many (most, all?) believers to take the path they do. This sounds good, but I see no proof for such a statement. In fact, I can certainly state the same for the atheists. Of course, one can talk about P problems for just about anything (and Freud pretty much does, yes?) But, that wasn’t the context. The point was made that folk come to believe, because they have P issues.

I can very easily see that Religion can cause P problems and perhaps often does. Guilt is an obvious, albeit relatively minor, example and suicide-bombers are an extreme case. But, I think people believing or arriving at their belief because they have P issues, as a blanket statement, is a leap. (Any more than marrying a red head versus a brunette is caused by P issues.) Indeed, I see evidence here on the forum that suggests that atheists often come to their decisions because of P issues:

Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion? This seems to be the case with many former Christians. It seems something happened to them; whether it was their mother force-feeding Religion to them or perhaps some nun in kindergarten cracked their hands with a ruler. Anyway, it seems someone did some damage along the way. The cause is by someone, not Religion, per se.

So, the bottom line question is this: Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say) any more than atheists arrive at their “conclusions” because of P reasons (e.g. Ego.)?

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

I sincerely think you are misinterpreting they tyupical skeptic's bitterness toward believers. Yes, there are some of us who were slapped too hard with a ruler in Catholic school (my stepfather for instance) however I am not one of those.

I think the majority of us (picking up the skeptic mantle) are upset that religions and their followers believe they know what is just, moral, and claim to know how others should live their lives using the Ultimate Authority as their shield. Not only do us skeptics see these believers as self-deluding, we also feel they meddle too much in our lives. If i want to screw someone of the same sex, swear, use contraception, or whatever, I dont want some nitwit who reads at the level of a 10 year old preaching to me about hell.
there's the bitterness.
If it makes you feel better, fine. Obviously not all believers are meddlers. Just a lot of them.

-g

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Noooooooo. (can you type sarcasticaly?) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would like to know how many non-believers have father issues as well, but that's another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
So, the bottom line question is this: Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say) any more than atheists arrive at their “conclusions” because of P reasons (e.g. Ego.)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to sat no. No doubt that some do, but I don't think it's any more than others come to different views.

Also I really think that a P need can't/won't sustain faith. It may get you there, but sooner or later that need will arise again.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]

So, the bottom line question is this: Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say) any more than atheists arrive at their “conclusions” because of P reasons (e.g. Ego.)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Our real motives are not always obvious even to ourselves. When I was a teen and many years before I became a Christian someone asked me if I hated everyone. I had no clue what she meant and didn't think about it further, though I never forgot the question. It was only after becoming a Christian, and then gradually over the course of decades, that I began to fully understand what prompted her question and how right she had been.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want some nitwit who reads at the level of a 10 year old preaching to me about hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing your part to squash those stereotypes? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] kidding

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

<font color="red">Has anyone else noticed some of the bitterness some Atheists have with Religion? </font>

Actually I think the opposite is true. I am amazed at the patience many atheists show for believers. I wonder how much patience you would exhibit with someone who insisted to you that pixies are real? And not just any pixie, but their exact version of one!

What if I told you that the best way to lead your life was according to the zodiac? There are all kinds of reasons to believe in astrology! Let's see how much patience you'll have with me while I insist to you that it is all very sensible. I know you won't dismiss my beliefs as being unintelligent. So start proving to me why astrology and pixies have no merit.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

The bitterness on this board is an expression of youthful angst, IMO. As has been said before here, most people don't choose their religion, instead it is given to them by their family. That kinda throws the P issue theory out the window.

I want you guys to know that regardless of what I think of your beliefs, I respect and value your right to hold them. I have a problem with fanaticism, not religion. That is why I usually make my "arguments" in the form of a question. I want you to think, because independent thinking (again IMO) is the antidote for fanaticism.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

I thought it might help to list some reasons aetheists (me) might be very frustrated by people treating religion as truth. Only a few off the top of my head, lots more have occured over a lifetime.

1) Using religion as a basis for decision making.

Can you imagin how frustating it is to try to discus something logically with someone who cites a fictional book? I'm not talking about the existence of God, I mean real issues such as politics and morality. This is one reason why I deem it a reasonable use of my time to try to talk people out of religion first.

2) Actually, thinking about it now, I think they are all variants of (1). But any situations where people use religion to get a holiday from work, be fussy with food, claim ownership of a country, etc etc.

Our food in university halls was awful. We got a choice of 2 dishes (and a vegetarian dish). Muslim students got a choice of 5 dishes (the 3 above +2 well prepared halaal curries). Non-muslims were not allowed those choices. So they had more choice and ate better than we did. In England.

That kind of bias throughout life has built up in me a resentment of our cultural acceptance of religious B.S.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say so.

Consider this: Take a smart, healthy young person. There's an awful lot he or she can do with his life. There are some phenomenal pleasures to be experienced, be they athletics, partying, love, art, music, learning, games, etc. etc. etc. There's also a darn lot of personally fulfilling career things someone can experience, and a lot that one person can do to help society, and to help others live a higher quality of life.

Now suppose you were taught from a young age that this amazing experience that we call life DOESN'T MATTER...because afterward you go to some magical world that's infinitely better if you do this one silly thing that takes absolutely no effort and even the most useless person in the world can do, and if you don't do it, you are punished infinitely.

So now, since life doesn't matter, all there is to do is to believe that a dead carpenter came back to life, and maybe try and get some other people to do the same thing.

*believes*

w00t. I believe in a dead carpenter. Wow. I've just accomplished more than I can ever do through hard work, compassion and academic passion.

I think this is a pretty good way to get the losers of society to feel like they've done something worthwhile, and honestly, it's pretty demotivating.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say)

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't recall ever once saying that.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say)

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't recall ever once saying that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to do a search. I must be confusing you with another poster. Sorry, no offense was intended in any case. But, I do remember the phrase because it was used on more than one occasion.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say)

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't recall ever once saying that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to do a search. I must be confusing you with another poster. Sorry, no offense was intended in any case. But, I do remember the phrase because it was used on more than one occasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I searched myself and found two references. However, I think your initial characterization is taken out of context. For example, I referred to Jeff V's "warm and fuzzy" feelings leading to faith as a response to his post about his feelings-based rationale for coming to the church. On the second occasion, I referred to such feelings after a poster (actually you, RJT) used "I like the concept of my faith " as part of his rationale (actually listed as #1 but order did not necessarily imply precedence) for belief. In other words, I only cited the "warm and fuzzy" when the poster himself used such feelings as a basis for faith, but I have not implied that all Christians come through faith solely as a need for warm and fuzzy feelings.

Incidentally, you ask why atheists seem "bitter" towards believers. Maybe because of their use of such rationale like your "I like the concept of my faith" as basis for belief, and yet at the same time trying to maintain that they are intellectually honest. Your burden of proof is a terrible double standard, mine is not (I don't let science off the hook for everything because "I like the concept of it"). And it is somewhat frustrating debating with people in a sci/philo forum who are obtusely so intellectually dishonest. I have posted criticisms of many atheist posts which make claims that are not supportable, despite my general agreement with atheists. You and your cronies continually support the faulty logic, the assumptions = conclusions, the double standard of proof, etc. of each other ad nauseum. However, this does not make me bitter or frustrated in actuality. Why? Because I believe your lapses of consistency and logic are obvious to any objective reader and make a great case for an "on the fence" theist to re-examine their views. So, it is not you who will be "converted" by such debate. But exposing your arguments, may inadverently (for you) help others question the grounds of their faith.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do folk generally come to their beliefs out of some P need (to feel all warm and fuzzy, as Dr. kidluckee likes to say)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say so.

Consider this: Take a smart, healthy young person. There's an awful lot he or she can do with his life. There are some phenomenal pleasures to be experienced, be they athletics, partying, love, art, music, learning, games, etc. etc. etc. There's also a darn lot of personally fulfilling career things someone can experience, and a lot that one person can do to help society, and to help others live a higher quality of life.

Now suppose you were taught from a young age that this amazing experience that we call life DOESN'T MATTER...because afterward you go to some magical world that's infinitely better if you do this one silly thing that takes absolutely no effort and even the most useless person in the world can do, and if you don't do it, you are punished infinitely.

So now, since life doesn't matter, all there is to do is to believe that a dead carpenter came back to life, and maybe try and get some other people to do the same thing.

*believes*

w00t. I believe in a dead carpenter. Wow. I've just accomplished more than I can ever do through hard work, compassion and academic passion.

I think this is a pretty good way to get the losers of society to feel like they've done something worthwhile, and honestly, it's pretty demotivating.

[/ QUOTE ]


This post is very accurate in describing the "Jesus saves" mentality.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

The responses so far to this have been really good. I would like to hypthoesize that there probably are some psychological reasons why people believe in God. (Yes, a lot of people are raised to believe their religion, but in the U.S., a lot fewer people "practice" their faith, by raising their kids in Church, than merely "believe".)

I think the psychological reasons are "hope", "fear", and "comfort". People hope that there is an after-life, fear that death may be final, and are comforted that they will not cease to exist after they die. They hope that life is fair, fear that bad people will get away without being punished, and and are comforted that god will take care of it. They are comforted by having an all-powerful father who loves them, and will look after them. They fear bad things happening to them, and hope and are comforted that God will protect them. They fear the unknown, and are comforted that the answer to all unknowns is "God".

Hope, fear, and comfort. There are probably a lot of reasons, but I think that sums it up.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

<font color="red"> Hope, fear, and comfort. There are probably a lot of reasons, but I think that sums it up.
</font>

This makes a lot of sense, but I find just one problem. Even atheists have hope, fear, and comfort issues. Wouldn't we ALL like to believe that there is a better place waiting for us where our existence will never end, that evil will not go unpunished, and that someone is looking after us?

This might sound mean, but we all want these things so at some point doesn't it really come down to a predisposition for gullibility over rationality?

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

On the couch!

I can remember when I was ten and positively said to myself that their is no God. I don't see this as the result of any psychological problem but simply as the result of considering what to me made sense. I would say I had a psychological need to "know" what is and isn't the case, ie a need to make rational enquiries and come to conclusions (sound or not is another matter!) based on those enquiries (or presented information).

I equally believe most believers in God did not end up believing in God because of any psychological problems.

There is a commonality to both sides. The human brain is wired up to attempt to make sense of the world of which it is concious of (whether by design by God or evolutionary demands is irrelevant to the point)and different folks make sense of the world in different ways.

I am talking in broad terms, but I trust you get the basic thesis here.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even atheists have hope, fear, and comfort issues. Wouldn't we ALL like to believe that there is a better place waiting for us where our existence will never end, that evil will not go unpunished, and that someone is looking after us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go out on a limb and say that this is certainly not true of everybody equally. I would surmise that there is a strong correlation between atheists and libertarians. Some of the correlation is due, in my opinion, to: (1) commitment to reason, (2) skepticism of broad-sweeping claims by either the church or politicians, and ... (3) a belief that man can act as his own agent to create his destiny without the need for a god construct, (4) strong commitment to freedom, and the possible consequences freedom entails (we accept the risks and personal responsibility). Those more susceptible to needing a "better place" waiting for them or someone looking out for them are *probably* less individualistic by nature. I'll use my brain, my abilities, and take my chances without some higher-dimensional being having my back. If I fail or am wrong, I can live with that (and if I'm burning in Hell for eternity, I will be thinking "this is still a stupid idea.")

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The human brain is wired up to attempt to make sense of the world of which it is concious of

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that the vast majority of humans prefer to NOT use their brain in this manner, but rather have someobody else do that and tell them the results.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

"I would argue that the vast majority of humans prefer to NOT use their brain in this manner, but rather have someobody else do that and tell them the results."

AMEN!!

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Hope, fear, and comfort. There are probably a lot of reasons, but I think that sums it up.
</font>

This makes a lot of sense, but I find just one problem. Even atheists have hope, fear, and comfort issues. Wouldn't we ALL like to believe that there is a better place waiting for us where our existence will never end, that evil will not go unpunished, and that someone is looking after us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that's true for most people, atheists and theists alike. I didn't mean that these were the only reason why people believe. Belief is very complicated -- a lot of factors are involved. I believe some of those factors are psychological. But, people who have a strong fear of death, will be more likely to believe in god and an after life than someone who doesn't fear death as much. Some people are better at dealing with uncertainty -- these people will be less inclined to grasp onto an answer for answer's sake.

[ QUOTE ]
This might sound mean, but we all want these things so at some point doesn't it really come down to a predisposition for gullibility over rationality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... that may be part of it, too. For me, personally, I've always been an extremely inquisitive and skeptical person. That's just my nature. Some people care less about facts, and more about feeling good. Sometimes I envy those people.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people care less about facts, and more about feeling good. Sometimes I envy those people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, pity them.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I would argue that the vast majority of humans prefer to NOT use their brain in this manner, but rather have someobody else do that and tell them the results."

AMEN!!

[/ QUOTE ]

That is their brains way of making sense of the world! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some people care less about facts, and more about feeling good. Sometimes I envy those people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, pity them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorance is bliss, right? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In my worldview, sometimes it's hard to reconcile knowing the truth/facts with being happy. If you had to choose between the two -- knowing the facts/truth, or being happy -- which do you choose? I'd rather have both, but sometimes that might not be an option.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't we ALL like to believe that there is a better place waiting for us where our existence will never end, that evil will not go unpunished, and that someone is looking after us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if that was all that a god-belief entailed, it still doesn't sound that appealling. Fortunately, there are more negative issues involved with a god-belief and there's no danger that atheists that arrive at their position from a more philisophical approach rather than just a 'there's no evidence' approach are pretty insulated from a few supposed treats.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you had to choose between the two -- knowing the facts/truth, or being happy -- which do you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a fun way you can divide people into two camps
a)- It's true, therefore I'm happy
b)- I'm happy, therefore it's true.

(a) usually plays out more in a 'search for truth' makes me happy.
(b) plays out on several levels and seems related to arguments like "we've always done it that way" , "everybody does it this way".

skeptical vs affirmation approachs

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

It's important that you don't deemphasize the other factors, such as irrationality and ignorance, etc.. The psychological aspect is mostly important because of the way it lets these other flaws thrive. It also probably accounts for why irrationality and ignorance don't just lead to a billion different nonsensical religions, rather the output coelesces into a fairly small number of religions, due to societal and family pressures, for example.

As for Atheists being driven there by psychological forces, perhaps it's true in some cases, but I doubt it's as widespread as you'd like to think. It's certainly not an ego thing; it's a rationality thing. I've taken the position where I hold reason and rationality in high esteem. I'm also able to think lucidly enough to seperate pyschological drives from logical reasoning.

A personal example:
As a teenager, I was very serious about calling myself 'agnostic.' I ridiculed 'atheism' as being egotistical and pompous. After reading the Asimov passage I quoted here awhile back, I immediately changed, and have called myself an 'atheist' ever since. It was a simple realization that Asimov's argument made sense that prompted my change, regardless of any spite or disdain I may have previously held toward the position.

Anyway, I made note in my posts that you're referring to, that atheists aren't necessarily universally free from these types of psychological issues. But some, maybe most, are. And it's 100% for the believers.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

"I can remember when I was ten and positively said to myself that their is no God. I don't see this as the result of any psychological problem but simply as the result of considering what to me made sense. I would say I had a psychological need to "know" what is and isn't the case, ie a need to make rational enquiries and come to conclusions (sound or not is another matter!) based on those enquiries (or presented information).

I equally believe most believers in God did not end up believing in God because of any psychological problems.

There is a commonality to both sides. The human brain is wired up to attempt to make sense of the world of which it is concious of (whether by design by God or evolutionary demands is irrelevant to the point)and different folks make sense of the world in different ways.

I am talking in broad terms, but I trust you get the basic thesis here."

I agree. A high percentage believe because their lack of knowledge or weak thinking ability leads them to believe. They are of course pushed further along by psychological reasons but that isn't the main motivater for them. However most of the religious posters on this forum do not have those intellectual handicaps. Ergo, they are not playing with a full deck.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

You do realize that this:

[ QUOTE ]
It's certainly not an ego thing; it's a rationality thing. I've taken the position where I hold reason and rationality in high esteem. I'm also able to think lucidly enough to seperate pyschological drives from logical reasoning.

…It was a simple realization that Asimov's argument made sense that prompted my change, regardless of any spite or disdain I may have previously held toward the position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contradicts this:

[ QUOTE ]
Isaac Asimov:
Quote:
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

don’t you?

He decided based on emotion. Until he took the leap with his emotions, he was a by-stander. He relied on his logic. That is, logically we cannot know whether God or no god (Which is correct of course.).

If you have no problem saying believers succumb to their psychology and atheists succumb to their emotions; then I have no problem hearing it.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

It is going to take me a while to respond to your posts. There are quite a few assumptions in there that simply don’t apply.

In the meantime, if you could find any post of mine where my logic was flawed it would be helpful to the discussion. First you will have to find a post where I tried to use logic to discuss my Religion. That will be hard to do, as I think it is absurd to say Faith is logical - or that my faith in Jesus comes from some deductive reasoning.

If you revisit the posts from last night regarding the Bible you will see that it was I trying to explain to you that there is not proof in the Bible. You insisted that if there is some type of even “maybes” then that gets us somewhere. It gets us nowhere, if one is trying to logically deduce Religion. The closest it gets us is to say “hmmm, nah” or “hmmm, I am going for it.”

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

As the only person in this forum who is still undecided on the God debate (or so it seems), I feel like my two cents might be of some use here.

First, some background info: if asked, I will still identify myself as a Christian. This is largely because I inherited my faith ("force-fed" is not applicable here, and I find that term insulting), and I still like the idea of God. That is to say, I would prefer that God exist. Clearly, that is a psychological factor in my "belief," if you can call it that.

If you really examined my life, however, I think you would find that I'm a practicing agnostic. I live my life without any real consideration of God at all, even though I still nominally believe in Him. Over the past few years, I've been scrutinizing my belief, to see if I should take it more seriously or abandon it completely. I still don't know, but this forum is occasionally helpful to me.

At this point, I don't see how abandoning my belief (weak as it is) could be all that helpful to me. I'd still feel bound to do the right thing by my personal morals, even if I didn't have a religious faith that required moral acts. I suppose the only benefit is that I would lose the occasional guilt I feel over not taking my faith more seriously.

Also, I don't see how the atheists can deny any sort of psychological aspect to their non-belief. Granted, many of them can make a fine intellectual case as well, but many of the posts to this thread have been from atheists who say religion makes them angry because of religious people. That is not the religion's fault, and if you don't believe in order to spite people, then that's certainly a psychological factor.

One last thing, for what it's worth: from my childhood to my first few years in college, I was very active in church and Christian-related organizations. I read my Bible every day, things like that. I never "felt" God or anything like that, though, nothing like what other Christians said had happened to them. Midway through college, I decided that it would be more honest to just abandon the good Christian charade and see what would happen. I have since been living the practical agnostic lifestyle, which is more honest for me at this point in time. I can state with 100% certainty, though, that I was happier before, even though I was just going through the motions. I know this doesn't prove anything, and that it could be a result of completely unrelated factors, but I thought I'd throw it out there all the same.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

Jester, what an honest and insightful post. Seriously.
There is no doubt in my mind that belief in and of itself would make me feel better. For me, it is a fact that i feel better when i have a purpose or a reason (whether the purpose be to mow the lawn or that my existence has meaning). Lack of meaning and purpose is a downer.

Because I have been so consistently harsh in my criticism of organized religion, i will say that I am still looking quite seriously at life, at my spiritual beliefs, etc.

I might even say its the most important thing in my life.

But i simply refuse to believe in something because it makes me happier. I'm too stuborn, i dont know. But I wont do it. Being a devout Jew might have made me feel a better sense of purpose to the world, therefore happier in general.

However, I think there is a longer road to something beyond simplistic happiness. Not the happiness of a little kid getting a pat on the head from god (daddy). But the happiness of someone who has faced the void, faced the emptiness and actually understood something of it.

You can get something from nothing if you are honest about it. And i think it pays greater dividends than being spoonfed spirituality to get sedated into a fat and happy member of the flock.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
However most of the religious posters on this forum do not have those intellectual handicaps. Ergo, they are not playing with a full deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who are smarter than you would disagree.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

I figured someone would hone in on the use of 'emotion' in Asimov's passage. I was going to address it preemptively in my last post, but I'm lazy.

In dealing with the Asimov quote, you need to determine what is actually meant by 'emotion.' I'll say up front, that it's possible (although I think unlikely) that my interpretation of his language is not identical to what he originally intended. That's not important, though, because I'm not making an appeal to authority; the quote has special significance to me because of the logical argument presented as I read it, not because the great wise Asimov wrote it. (This distinction is similar to those who would seek to discredit all of modern evolutionary theory because Darwin may or may not have made a misjudgement somewhere.)

When Asimov refers to emotion, he's referring to the basic 'irrationality' that one must live with to assume rationality and reason axiomatically. It is this acknowledgment that allows one to get past the stage of pure metaphysical speculation, and actually make meaningful decisions about life.

Now, you can go ahead and challenge the validity of this assumption, but it doesn't help you out at all either. It just makes any discussion at all impossible or nonsensical at best.

Along these lines, I also dispute your assertion that you don't try to use logic/reason along with faith as a basis of your belief. The simple statement of "faith is evidence of things unseen" (hebrews 11:1) is a logical statement. It is ridiculous, but it still attempts to make a logical implication. If you want to disregard logic as a basis for belief, you are basically stuck saying, "it's true; it just is." You can't really try to make any justification whatsoever, otherwise you're bringing reason into play, and then your whole case breaks down.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
As a teenager, I was very serious about calling myself 'agnostic.' I ridiculed 'atheism' as being egotistical and pompous. After reading the Asimov passage I quoted here awhile back, I immediately changed, and have called myself an 'atheist' ever since. It was a simple realization that Asimov's argument made sense that prompted my change, regardless of any spite or disdain I may have previously held toward the position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant. You've tricked yourself into thinking that the act of renaming a sound position magically vindicates an unsound one.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

BTW, the line between psychological deficiency and lack of logical/rational strength is not a clear one as I see it. It takes a certain amount of logical strength to recognize when a psychological drive is affecting the way you address a position. So which is the root problem here, the psychology or the irrationality?

I tried to make it clear in all my posts on this subject that I'm arguing an assortment of causes lead to religious belief, not simply psychological ones. I added parentheticals after almost every mention of psychology to note these other causes. (I wish David hadn't chopped this out in the other thread when commenting on my post.) It probably varies from individual to individual which causes are more dominating, but like I said above, it's also difficult to draw a specific line of demarcation between them.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

Seriously? I'm sorry, I mean....seriously?

0/10 for content.
0/10 for effort.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's not important, though, because I'm not making an appeal to authority; the quote has special significance to me because of the logical argument presented as I read it, not because the great wise Asimov wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is Asimov's argument, exactly? That we should use language imprecisely in order accomodate a specious (but genial) metaphysics?

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However most of the religious posters on this forum do not have those intellectual handicaps. Ergo, they are not playing with a full deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who are smarter than you would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're right.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

How unfair. I should at least get a few points for exposing your "logical argument" as meaningless legerdemain.

Re: Let’s take a few minutes on the couch.
 

For real. I'm still trying to figure out if I'm too dumb or too crazy.