More insight into religion: logical and emotional beliefs

[robvalue]

I came to a realisation during a very enlightening chat with one of my friends recently. It seems to me it's entirely possible to hold two different beliefs about the same subject. One is the emotional belief, and one is the logical belief. One may simply be stronger than the other, and wins out in a crucial situation.

I was talking about the way I view the pets I have had in the past who have now passed away. Logically, I believe (I'd even say that I know) that they are gone. They don't exist in any meaningful sense anymore, except in memories. However, emotionally I believe they are still here. I talk about them in the first person. I think about them being somewhere else, rather than not being alive at all. I can see that this is how my brain copes. If this belief drops out, which it sometimes does, I'm overwhelmed with sadness. My brain seems to know this. So it keeps me happy, keeps me going, with the emotional pretense that they are still here. It repaints reality for me, and I let it do that.

Also, my depression makes me hold irrational beliefs. Much stronger ones. Ones I know are irrational, but it doesn't matter. The emotion is so strong that I believe it overall, even though I know it's not true. If powerful emotion and logic butt heads, emotion often wins. As the emotion gets more and more extreme, it drowns out the logic. The internal logic, that is. Instead, logic becomes a rationaliser. It is used to explain why the emotional belief is actually rational. It fails to do so, but it makes the person feel better about holding the belief. I try to logically explain why I am worthless, because I feel worthless. I even hear all the logical fallacies I'm making ringing up, but I don't care. It feels true, so it must be justifiable.

Religion seems like the extreme of this. It's where emotion has totally taken over, and has drawn conclusions for you before you've even realised there is anything to conclude. Logic is not involved until afterwards, when the person tries to rationalise the belief they already know to be true. These rationalisations aren't important, as they are strawmen, hiding the real reason for belief which the person may not even know. If they did realise the real reason for the belief, they'd probably lose it.

[RoadRunner79]

I came to a realisation during a very enlightening chat with one of my friends recently. It seems to me it's entirely possible to hold two different beliefs about the same subject. One is the emotional belief, and one is the logical belief. One may simply be stronger than the other, and wins out in a crucial situation.

I was talking about the way I view the pets I have had in the past who have now passed away. Logically, I believe (I'd even say that I know) that they are gone. They don't exist in any meaningful sense anymore, except in memories. However, emotionally I believe they are still here. I talk about them in the first person. I think about them being somewhere else, rather than not being alive at all. I can see that this is how my brain copes. If this belief drops out, which it sometimes does, I'm overwhelmed with sadness. My brain seems to know this. So it keeps me happy, keeps me going, with the emotional pretense that they are still here. It repaints reality for me, and I let it do that.

Also, my depression makes me hold irrational beliefs. Much stronger ones. Ones I know are irrational, but it doesn't matter. The emotion is so strong that I believe it overall, even though I know it's not true. If powerful emotion and logic butt heads, emotion often wins. As the emotion gets more and more extreme, it drowns out the logic. The internal logic, that is. Instead, logic becomes a rationaliser. It is used to explain why the emotional belief is actually rational. It fails to do so, but it makes the person feel better about holding the belief. I try to logically explain why I am worthless, because I feel worthless. I even hear all the logical fallacies I'm making ringing up, but I don't care. It feels true, so it must be justifiable.

Religion seems like the extreme of this. It's where emotion has totally taken over, and has drawn conclusions for you before you've even realised there is anything to conclude. Logic is not involved until afterwards, when the person tries to rationalise the belief they already know to be true. These rationalisations aren't important, as they are strawmen, hiding the real reason for belief which the person may not even know. If they did realise the real reason for the belief, they'd probably lose it.

I think that one should be careful about psycho-analyzing in broad generalizations. I could justifiably reverse this from my position. I think the truth vs fiction thread and the popular catch phrase that extroidinary claims require unbelievable evidence could serve as evidence.

[Whateverist]

I guess you weren't the one arguing for a "god hole" in the brain, RR. But Rob's analysis fits that rather well if you were into all that "properly basic" rot.

[Edwardo Piet]

Thank you for creating this thread Rob!

It's an awesome topic! Kudos!

Yes. And I think religious belief is mostly emotional.

[robvalue]

Thank you

I've been trying very hard to understand how religious belief comes about and is maintained. Not having any experience myself, I've tried to piece it together by listening to theists and relating it to my own experiences.

Religious people often refer to feelings, and even sometimes try to actively discourage logical analysis.

[brewer]

Rob, you cope by whatever means you need to use. If the rest of us don't understand or agree then we can just piss off.

Your happiness is more important than our acceptance. BTW, I accept your rationalizations/justifications.

[Angrboda]

I think it is an error to try to understand the theist from the point of view of an atheist, from your starting point. We all have different biases and past experiences which shape our inclination towards religion or away from it. Many of these factors influence us subconsciously, so inspecting our conscious experience to explain the difference is not fruitful. I liken it to being on different rivers on different continents, with the current taking each of you to a different destination. You cannot get to their destination following the river that you are on, and they cannot get to yours. There is no way to understand the other which isn't fundamentally flawed by the vast differences that separate your starting points.

[Whateverist]

I think it is an error to try to understand the theist from the point of view of an atheist, from your starting point.  We all have different biases and past experiences which shape our inclination towards religion or away from it.  Many of these factors influence us subconsciously, so inspecting our conscious experience to explain the difference is not fruitful.  I liken it to being on different rivers on different continents, with the current taking each of you to a different destination.  You cannot get to their destination following the river that you are on, and they cannot get to yours.  There is no way to understand the other which isn't fundamentally flawed by the vast differences that separate your starting points.

So we're really comparing "po-ta-toes" with "po-tah-tohs"?  Confirmation bias cuts both ways at least.

[robvalue]

I think it is an error to try to understand the theist from the point of view of an atheist, from your starting point.  We all have different biases and past experiences which shape our inclination towards religion or away from it.  Many of these factors influence us subconsciously, so inspecting our conscious experience to explain the difference is not fruitful.  I liken it to being on different rivers on different continents, with the current taking each of you to a different destination.  You cannot get to their destination following the river that you are on, and they cannot get to yours.  There is no way to understand the other which isn't fundamentally flawed by the vast differences that separate your starting points.

Sure, but I have no choice except to not try at all! I do find many similarities in my thought processes. I don't think (religious) theists are so different that I can't possibly understand their mindset. It's just an irrational belief, after all. And I have had plenty of those myself. I've had some indoctrinated into me, in a manner of speaking.

I think I've made some progress from my initial conclusion which was, "They're nuts".

[RoadRunner79]

I guess you weren't the one arguing for a "god hole" in the brain, RR. But Rob's analysis fits that rather well if you were into all that "properly basic" rot.

I can understand some of the arguments made, and agree with them, but I don't think they are particularly strong, and are sometimes taken too far. It's a small piece of a much larger circumstantial case.