Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[madog]

Welcome .... Intelligent theists compartmentalize to allow for a logical and reasoning compartment and a separate compartment for all their Woo ....

Although they have two compartments they must subconsciously know they are arguing shit .... You only argue shit to win not to learn

[Drich]

Hi, I'm new to this forum but lifelong atheist. I don’t know if this topic has been raised before, but this is an observation I wanted to share about the ongoing debate between religion and atheism, and in particular why it still goes on.

If you are an atheist like me, you may have seen dozens of debates about religion and the existence of God, thanks to YouTube. But have you ever seen a debate where you thought the religious apologist(s) really proved their case, on any issue? It seems to me that the atheists always win. All of apologists’ arguments have been thoroughly, repeatedly and exhaustively debunked by reason, logic, evidence, science and wit. Perhaps you find it as frustrating as I do that, despite this, religious people never appear to acknowledge their defeat or concede a point, whether at a formal debate or in a discussion. Partly this is because people don't want to lose face by appearing to change their mind in public, but I believe there is a much deeper reason:

Religious people don't actually believe for the reasons they give in defence of their faith. 

In a typical debate or discussion, the religious person will run through one or more common gambits - the Argument from Design, the Moral Argument, Kalam, TAG, the (claimed) divinity of the holy book, and the shifting of the burden of proof, e.g. "Well can you prove God doesn't exist?" or they will parry with "Well that's why you need faith!" and so on. But it seems to me that most of this is a smoke screen. Notice that they are rarely bothered when these tired old arguments are debunked and dismissed, as though they weren't even listening. Why? Simple – they have nothing personally invested in any of those apologetic arguments.

I believe that people believe and hold on to their religions for different reasons - deeper reasons that go beyond philosophical and intellectual justification.

Here are the top 5 reasons why I think they really hold on to their beliefs:

1) IDENTITY - their religion and the belief system they have around it is part of their identity, intimately linked with their sense of self. For them, they do not just think e.g. "I agree with the beliefs of Christianity." They think "I AM a Christian, and therefore I believe X,Y and Z." It makes them feel good about themselves. It also means that when you criticize their belief, they feel that you are criticizing them as a person and attacking them in their core identity. Think about how you feel if someone insults the sports team you support, or any other group or organisation of which you were an enthusiastic member. Think how you feel when someone talks trash about Atheists.

2) COMMUNITY - for those practicing a religion, the biggest value they get from it is often community. Going to church or mosque or synagogue etc gives them regular human contact, social acceptance, friends, a sense of belonging and being in agreement with others. There is an element of ritual, and it's a very significant and meaningful part of people's lives. Often it is part of their family life as well. This means that threatening their beliefs is threatening a huge part of their lives, and for many people that's too much to lose. Identity and Community are linked and are particularly strong reasons where those in a religion are also part of a minority group, and/or where the religion is interwoven with people's cultural heritage. Also, for Muslims in particular, the threat to apostates is real and often serious, which will discourage them from even thinking about leaving the religion.

3) TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE - many people interpret the most profound, beautiful, transcendent experiences of beauty, love, joy, bliss and inner peace through a religious lens. Many people, myself included, have had experiences of such utter oneness and perfection, love and bliss (without the use of narcotics - in my case through introspective meditation) that you even get a sense that perhaps this experience, this feeling, this state, is what people originally meant when they used the word 'God'. These experiences can be difficult to put into words, and people will rarely rest their case on them in a debate. Often religion has a virtual monopoly on what are sometimes the most important, meaningful and even life-changing experiences of people's lives – many people have no other frame of reference to explain or communicate them. For anyone who genuinely associates that level of experience with a religion, intellectual argument will be dismissed if you do not also acknowledge the value of these experiences to the individual.

4) FEAR OF DEATH - this applies to the individual, and anyone they have ever lost. Most people are afraid of death, many people have lost loved ones. Often people manage this fear of their own death and the grief of losing people with the idea of an afterlife, most commonly through a religious structure. Heaven/Hell, reincarnation etc. So for many religious people you debate, for them to re-evaluate their world view means reconsidering how they manage their fear of death. Moreover, if they have lost someone significant – a family member for example, and if their religion is part of how they have dealt their grief, removing those believes would mean they have to face deep emotional pain. It’s understandable why many would rather not do that, and don’t feel obliged to just for taking part in a theological discussion.

5) INDOCTRINATED FEAR OF HELL – part of the same issue: sadly, many who are brought up by religious parents have had the fear of eternal torture indoctrinated (and worse, rationalized and justified) by their family and community from such a young age that, whilst they may engage in a debate thinking that since they have the truth they will win, it would not even occur to them to genuinely stop, look inside and consider whether what they believe is actually true or even rationally justified - because even this would put them at risk of eternal torture.

If there are any I have missed please feel free to post them in the comments below.

For religious people who hold their beliefs for these reasons, they may feel justified on an emotional level to ignore the intellectual defeat of the ideas and apologetics they give in defence of their religion, as they were never what they were defending in the first place. They don’t care about TAG or Kalam – they care about managing their personal fear of death and damnation, about protecting their identify and self image, about being a valued member of a community, and about validating the most transcendent experiences of their lives. This is why they use 'faith' to insulate these core values against intellectual scrutiny.

After all, as evolved primates we are still hard wired to have our conscious thinking overridden by instinct to avoid a perceived threat - the "indelible stamp of our lowly origin' as Darwin so rightly put it.

Despite this, I still believe that in the end, the truth will win out.

  If this is all true you should be running this forum inside a week...
Good luck with that.

Welcome to AF.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Thanks everyone for the warm welcome

[RoadRunner79]

Hi, I'm new to this forum but lifelong atheist. I don’t know if this topic has been raised before, but this is an observation I wanted to share about the ongoing debate between religion and atheism, and in particular why it still goes on.

If you are an atheist like me, you may have seen dozens of debates about religion and the existence of God, thanks to YouTube. But have you ever seen a debate where you thought the religious apologist(s) really proved their case, on any issue? It seems to me that the atheists always win. All of apologists’ arguments have been thoroughly, repeatedly and exhaustively debunked by reason, logic, evidence, science and wit. Perhaps you find it as frustrating as I do that, despite this, religious people never appear to acknowledge their defeat or concede a point, whether at a formal debate or in a discussion. Partly this is because people don't want to lose face by appearing to change their mind in public, but I believe there is a much deeper reason:

Religious people don't actually believe for the reasons they give in defence of their faith. 

In a typical debate or discussion, the religious person will run through one or more common gambits - the Argument from Design, the Moral Argument, Kalam, TAG, the (claimed) divinity of the holy book, and the shifting of the burden of proof, e.g. "Well can you prove God doesn't exist?" or they will parry with "Well that's why you need faith!" and so on. But it seems to me that most of this is a smoke screen. Notice that they are rarely bothered when these tired old arguments are debunked and dismissed, as though they weren't even listening. Why? Simple – they have nothing personally invested in any of those apologetic arguments.

I believe that people believe and hold on to their religions for different reasons - deeper reasons that go beyond philosophical and intellectual justification.

Here are the top 5 reasons why I think they really hold on to their beliefs:

1) IDENTITY - their religion and the belief system they have around it is part of their identity, intimately linked with their sense of self. For them, they do not just think e.g. "I agree with the beliefs of Christianity." They think "I AM a Christian, and therefore I believe X,Y and Z." It makes them feel good about themselves. It also means that when you criticize their belief, they feel that you are criticizing them as a person and attacking them in their core identity. Think about how you feel if someone insults the sports team you support, or any other group or organisation of which you were an enthusiastic member. Think how you feel when someone talks trash about Atheists.

2) COMMUNITY - for those practicing a religion, the biggest value they get from it is often community. Going to church or mosque or synagogue etc gives them regular human contact, social acceptance, friends, a sense of belonging and being in agreement with others. There is an element of ritual, and it's a very significant and meaningful part of people's lives. Often it is part of their family life as well. This means that threatening their beliefs is threatening a huge part of their lives, and for many people that's too much to lose. Identity and Community are linked and are particularly strong reasons where those in a religion are also part of a minority group, and/or where the religion is interwoven with people's cultural heritage. Also, for Muslims in particular, the threat to apostates is real and often serious, which will discourage them from even thinking about leaving the religion.

3) TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE - many people interpret the most profound, beautiful, transcendent experiences of beauty, love, joy, bliss and inner peace through a religious lens. Many people, myself included, have had experiences of such utter oneness and perfection, love and bliss (without the use of narcotics - in my case through introspective meditation) that you even get a sense that perhaps this experience, this feeling, this state, is what people originally meant when they used the word 'God'. These experiences can be difficult to put into words, and people will rarely rest their case on them in a debate. Often religion has a virtual monopoly on what are sometimes the most important, meaningful and even life-changing experiences of people's lives – many people have no other frame of reference to explain or communicate them. For anyone who genuinely associates that level of experience with a religion, intellectual argument will be dismissed if you do not also acknowledge the value of these experiences to the individual.

4) FEAR OF DEATH - this applies to the individual, and anyone they have ever lost. Most people are afraid of death, many people have lost loved ones. Often people manage this fear of their own death and the grief of losing people with the idea of an afterlife, most commonly through a religious structure. Heaven/Hell, reincarnation etc. So for many religious people you debate, for them to re-evaluate their world view means reconsidering how they manage their fear of death. Moreover, if they have lost someone significant – a family member for example, and if their religion is part of how they have dealt their grief, removing those believes would mean they have to face deep emotional pain. It’s understandable why many would rather not do that, and don’t feel obliged to just for taking part in a theological discussion.

5) INDOCTRINATED FEAR OF HELL – part of the same issue: sadly, many who are brought up by religious parents have had the fear of eternal torture indoctrinated (and worse, rationalized and justified) by their family and community from such a young age that, whilst they may engage in a debate thinking that since they have the truth they will win, it would not even occur to them to genuinely stop, look inside and consider whether what they believe is actually true or even rationally justified - because even this would put them at risk of eternal torture.

If there are any I have missed please feel free to post them in the comments below.

For religious people who hold their beliefs for these reasons, they may feel justified on an emotional level to ignore the intellectual defeat of the ideas and apologetics they give in defence of their religion, as they were never what they were defending in the first place. They don’t care about TAG or Kalam – they care about managing their personal fear of death and damnation, about protecting their identify and self image, about being a valued member of a community, and about validating the most transcendent experiences of their lives. This is why they use 'faith' to insulate these core values against intellectual scrutiny.

After all, as evolved primates we are still hard wired to have our conscious thinking overridden by instinct to avoid a perceived threat - the "indelible stamp of our lowly origin' as Darwin so rightly put it.

Despite this, I still believe that in the end, the truth will win out.

Who won a debate, is mostly a matter of who you found to be more persuasive.  It is subjective. I have seen debates where the Christian didn't present very well, and I would say that they lost that individual debate.  One can also win a debate, by simply being better at debating, by the opponent not being prepared, or throwing the opposition off track.  You also need to acknowledge, that who someone thinks won a debate is largely influenced by a priori worldview.

I think it is interesting, that you say that "Religious people don't actually believe for the reasons they give in defence (sic) of their faith." How did you come to that conclusion?   Lawrence Krauss came to a different conclusion after his debate with William Craig.

Also, am I allowed to paint such wide psychological brush strokes in regards to Atheist?  What am I to make, when many atheists, are presented with evidence and logic for God, and then don't even acknowledge that they where?   It is one thing, to listen to the arguments and not be persuaded by them, but to dismiss that they exist isn't reflective of reality.  I've also found some, who I feel are intelligent enough to know better, have difficulty, even accurately representing some arguments (even when corrected).   Are they not as smart as I thought, or is there some deeper psychological motives going on? 

In your list, you seem to be completely ignoring, those who come to believe in Christianity later in life, and do so because they find it more reasonable.   There are a number of apologist, that I listen to, who would fit into this category.

[RoadRunner79]

Fair enough. How does a deist deal with infinite regress? (Who made their infinitely complex creator?) There's a lot of woo right there is you ask me.

You stop the regress!   And the answer to your question is no one.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it is interesting, that you say that "Religious people don't actually believe for the reasons they give in defence (sic) of their faith." How did you come to that conclusion?   Lawrence Krauss came to a different conclusion after his debate with William Craig.

Which is strange, since Craig's been pretty open about how the arguments he presents aren't the reason he believes...don't you think?  Just mentioning Craig as an example is a validation of the OP.

[Minimalist]

Despite this, I still believe that in the end, the truth will win out.

Optimist!

Welcome aboard, though.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Who won a debate, is mostly a matter of who you found to be more persuasive.  It is subjective. I have seen debates where the Christian didn't present very well, and I would say that they lost that individual debate.  One can also win a debate, by simply being better at debating, by the opponent not being prepared, or throwing the opposition off track.  You also need to acknowledge, that who someone thinks won a debate is largely influenced by a priori worldview.

I think it is interesting, that you say that "Religious people don't actually believe for the reasons they give in defence (sic) of their faith." How did you come to that conclusion?   Lawrence Krauss came to a different conclusion after his debate with William Craig.

Also, am I allowed to paint such wide psychological brush strokes in regards to Atheist?  What am I to make, when many atheists, are presented with evidence and logic for God, and then don't even acknowledge that they where?   It is one thing, to listen to the arguments and not be persuaded by them, but to dismiss that they exist isn't reflective of reality.  I've also found some, who I feel are intelligent enough to know better, have difficulty, even accurately representing some arguments (even when corrected).   Are they not as smart as I thought, or is there some deeper psychological motives going on? 

In your list, you seem to be completely ignoring, those who come to believe in Christianity later in life, and do so because they find it more reasonable.   There are a number of apologist, that I listen to, who would fit into this category.

 Hi RoadRunner

I take your point about who wins a debate. What I'm getting at is the wider issue of why religious people actually hold their beliefs, which I main is usually for a different reason that those they give to defend it. I came to this conclusion having watched hundreds of debates and discussions, and taken part in many myself, and considered this issue at great length over many years - and I asked myself, If I believed, what would it take to change my mind? This made me think about why I would hold onto a belief, what value I would get from it, and how that could trump intellectual reasoning.

I would be very surprised if there is any evidence or logic for God that I haven't already heard and seen which holds up to proper examination and scrutiny. It has all been thoroughly debunked - although I keep an open mind and would be very interested to hear the logic and evidence for which you believe in God? Also please give me your definition of God, since everyone's is different.

[Minimalist]

We're winning.




One funeral at a time.

[RoadRunner79]

Who won a debate, is mostly a matter of who you found to be more persuasive.  It is subjective. I have seen debates where the Christian didn't present very well, and I would say that they lost that individual debate.  One can also win a debate, by simply being better at debating, by the opponent not being prepared, or throwing the opposition off track.  You also need to acknowledge, that who someone thinks won a debate is largely influenced by a priori worldview.

I think it is interesting, that you say that "Religious people don't actually believe for the reasons they give in defence (sic) of their faith." How did you come to that conclusion?   Lawrence Krauss came to a different conclusion after his debate with William Craig.

Also, am I allowed to paint such wide psychological brush strokes in regards to Atheist?  What am I to make, when many atheists, are presented with evidence and logic for God, and then don't even acknowledge that they where?   It is one thing, to listen to the arguments and not be persuaded by them, but to dismiss that they exist isn't reflective of reality.  I've also found some, who I feel are intelligent enough to know better, have difficulty, even accurately representing some arguments (even when corrected).   Are they not as smart as I thought, or is there some deeper psychological motives going on? 

In your list, you seem to be completely ignoring, those who come to believe in Christianity later in life, and do so because they find it more reasonable.   There are a number of apologist, that I listen to, who would fit into this category.

 Hi RoadRunner

I take your point about who wins a debate. What I'm getting at is the wider issue of why religious people actually hold their beliefs, which I main is usually for a different reason that those they give to defend it. I came to this conclusion having watched hundreds of debates and discussions, and taken part in many myself, and considered this issue at great length over many years - and I asked myself, If I believed, what would it take to change my mind? This made me think about why I would hold onto a belief, what value I would get from it, and how that could trump intellectual reasoning.

I would be very surprised if there is any evidence or logic for God that I haven't already heard and seen which holds up to proper examination and scrutiny. It has all been thoroughly debunked - although I keep an open mind and would be very interested to hear the logic and evidence for which you believe in God? Also please give me your definition of God, since everyone's is different.

Are you saying, that those who do not come to the same conclusions that you do; have ulterior motives?   Am I safe to assume the same?  And what is this intellectual reasoning that you mentioned, that you think is being trumped?

As to a definition of God, most dictionaries seem to have similar definitions for God, and I would say in general I would agree with the following.  

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives the following definition for “God”: 1. “the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe” (2009).