People often say “You only believe in God because it makes you feel better.” They think theism is just wish fulfillment. The idea of God fulfills some deep longing in our heart, so we choose to believe there is a God.
This is not a good reason to think God doesn’t exist. Maybe belief in God makes me feel better because there is a real God who is meeting a real existential need that results in me feeling better. Could you imagine if we approached medicine this way?: “You only believe in medicine because it makes you feel better.” Yes, it makes us feel better because medicine is an objective reality that changes the way we feel. Similarly, God is an objective reality that changes the way we feel about life, about ourselves, and about the future.
Besides, one’s psychological motivations for their belief in God is unrelated to the question of whether God exists or not. God either exists or He doesn’t. My psychological motivations for wanting to believe He exists or for wanting to believe He doesn’t exist have nothing to do with the question of whether God exists. Psychology can’t tell you anything about ontology. That’s why this “argument” against theism is a red herring.
Thinking to Believe 
June 13, 2023 at 8:57 am
“People often say “You only believe in God because it makes you feel better.””
I’ve literally have never met a single atheist who says this.
Belief is not a choice. It’s the inevitable result of what happens when one’s unconscious threshold for belief is exceeded. You can choose to put yourself in a situation where you might gain information that can increase or decrease your chances of belief or even shift your mental threshold, but you cannot choose what to believe. That will or won’t happen regardless of what you might want to happen.
As Schopenhauer noted, “a man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.”
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 11:09 am
Quite correct, Jason. Atheists like Karl Marx (“Religion is the opium of the people”) and many after him consider religious belief to be a sort of psychological aid in confronting the problems of life. But whether or not people use religion as a crutch is irrelevant to the truth value of faith. Since there are solid, rational grounds for believing in God, it’s an extra benefit that faith provides solace and encouragement for so many. To denigrate faith as a drug or a crutch indicates the philosophical weakness of many atheists.
LikeLike
June 16, 2023 at 1:27 pm
Derek, I largely agree that beliefs are formed rather than chosen. That said, there are cases where people choose to believe things simply because they like the idea or want it to be true.
As for your personal interactions with atheists, nothing follows from the fact that you haven’t met an atheist who made such a charge. It remains the case that many make the charge.
LikeLike
June 19, 2023 at 7:40 am
“I largely agree that beliefs are formed rather than chosen. That said, there are cases where people choose to believe things simply because they like the idea or want it to be true.”
Except that WANTING to believe something, no matter how sincerely or deeply, doesn’t mean belief will occur. I’ve known atheists who tried so hard in childhood to believe in God in order to have the experience their friends and family all said they had, and they were desperate to feel the same thing. No matter how hard they wanted to believe, it just didn’t happen. As a child, I myself wasn’t that desperate, but I still did want to experience what the clergy in the temples, mosques and churches were talking about, so I was open to their teachings. Again, nothing happened.
Belief is STILL an unconscious process that doesn’t involve conscious choice. Here, try a simple experiment to see for yourself: Will yourself to believe in, say, Vishnu instead of Yahweh, even just for one minute. Notice that no matter how hard you try, it won’t happen. But if you were to study Hinduism, immerse yourself in the culture, listen to the claimed miracles and testimony of Hindus, etc., you might eventually come to believe in Vishnu…but not because you willed it to happen, but because your unconscious mind was persuaded to its belief threshold.
“As for your personal interactions with atheists, nothing follows from the fact that you haven’t met an atheist who made such a charge. It remains the case that many make the charge.”
Agreed, it would be a black swan fallacy if I claimed no atheists have ever made this argument. It’s just been my experience that it’s not a “people often say” argument. Granted, personal testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, so my experience shouldn’t mean much to you. However, in the US alone there are millions of former Christians, and when asked they usually aren’t shy about telling people why they were believers in the first place. The #1 reason given is simply that that’s what they were raised from childhood to believe, while the “feel better” argument is just not a reason that ever comes up, that’s all.
LikeLike
June 21, 2023 at 8:10 am
Wanting to believe something without being able to actually believe it is certainly possible, but it doesn’t mean that belief necessarily won’t follow either. Lots of people believe things that violate their own standard of believability merely because they want to believe it. Some people may be constituted differently and simply cannot embrace something no matter badly they’d like to, but others have no problem whatsoever affirming something they cannot justify.
Dingbat writes:
Yet, it is precisely Derek’s own experience that forms the basis of his charge that Christians make up their own standard of goodness and arbitrarily ascribe goodness to God. The specific fallacy here is neglected aspect. This isn’t the case of some spattering of Christians somewhere in the world who have a different take on morality. The substantial majority of Christians assert an objective standard of good and evil, but irresponsible, self-appointed poo-bahs of knowledge ascribe to Christianity a belief on the basis of the very experience Derek says “shouldn’t mean much.” Right. Fallacious drivel doesn’t mean much to rational thinkers.
LikeLike
June 21, 2023 at 1:10 pm
Derek, no one is claiming that people can just change any belief by a sheer act of will. The point is that not all beliefs are based on good reason or evidence. Some are based in one’s desires. For example, people hold to all sorts of strange beliefs about their dead loved ones. For example, many people think their deceased loved ones are watching them from heaven or that they have become their guardian angel. There is no basis for these beliefs, but they believe these things because it makes them feel good to think such things are true. Some beliefs are wish fulfillment.
LikeLike
June 24, 2023 at 5:58 am
“Derek, no one is claiming that people can just change any belief by a sheer act of will. The point is that not all beliefs are based on good reason or evidence.”
I certainly agree with that. But you also said “there are cases where people choose to believe things simply because they like the idea or want it to be true,” which implies you think belief can be a choice. That’s where my disagreement lies.
“Some are based in one’s desires. For example, people hold to all sorts of strange beliefs about their dead loved ones.”
Well, you believe that people have souls and go to an afterlife after death, right? I hope you see the irony here. 😉
LikeLike
June 24, 2023 at 7:14 am
“but it doesn’t mean that belief necessarily won’t follow either.”
I’m making no such claim.
“Lots of people believe things that violate their own standard of believability merely because they want to believe it.”
As I noted, I’m not referring to personally decided-upon standards, but instead the *unconscious* standards for belief. Everyone has certain standards for belief, and if those standards are exceeded, one has no choice but to believe. It works in the other direction as well.
“Yet, it is precisely Derek’s own experience that forms the basis of his charge that Christians make up their own standard of goodness and arbitrarily ascribe goodness to God.”
No, that’s not just my personal experience; it’s pretty much everyone’s experience—yours included. For instance, I’m guessing you think forcing children into sexual slavery and slaughtering babies is immoral, right? It’s not a stretch to note that nearly all Christians consider such behavior immoral. And yet that is contrary to what God in the Bible considers moral.
So yes, Christians make up their own standard of goodness. But I wouldn’t say it’s arbitrary—society has become increasingly more moral over time by recognizing that some behaviors deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm and suffering, and should be avoided. Christians have benefited from that trend by becoming more moral themselves.
“The substantial majority of Christians assert an objective standard of good and evil”
They certainly do…but so many of them vehemently disagree on what that objective standard is. You’re a Catholic, right? According to many Christians, Catholics are immoral for worshiping statues of Mary, based on this Exodus 20 commandment:
• You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them.
But you don’t consider it immoral, right? There you go, vehement disagreement among Christians on an objective standard for morality. That’s just one example among many.
And note the part in that same commandment that says to not make ANY likeness of anything in heaven or on Earth. Yet how many Christians allow and even encourage their children to draw pictures of houses, trees, people, pets, and other examples of representative art? Christians have simply decided that objective morality can be ignored, even though the Bible doesn’t say that.
And why is it that Christians completely ignore the only list of Ten Commandments from Exodus 34 that Moses actually wrote down:
• You shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
• You shall make for yourself no molten gods.
• You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
• The first offspring from every womb belongs to God, and all your male livestock.
• You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest.
• Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
• Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
• You shall not offer the blood of God’s sacrifice with leavened bread.
• You shall bring the very first of the first fruits of your soil into the house of the LORD your God.
• You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
Is that objective or not? Is killing a child for talking back to his parents objectively moral? Is…okay, I’d better stop here or I’ll be here all day!
“Fallacious drivel doesn’t mean much to rational thinkers.”
That’s ironic, coming from someone who believes in God based on faith. Faith is not rational thinking, but instead the excuse people give for believing in something that lacks credible evidence.
LikeLike
June 24, 2023 at 2:26 pm
If one weren’t familiar with Derek’s character, his posts here would be head-scratching, at best. How a man can use a quote-response method and so completely miss the point of what he’s responding to can make sense in most instances only in the Twilight Zone.
I said nothing about “personally decided-upon standards,” (they could be either personal decisions or subconscious) but at this point, one shouldn’t expect any better from Derek the Dummkopf. I never said that I’m Catholic. Indeed, I have numerous times identified my theological pedigree, so that renders much of Post 8 hanging irrelevantly in midair. And he equally misses it with personal experiences relating to Christians and the basis for morality. In fact, his statements here are even more bizarre since we’ve previously interacted on that very topic, so he knows (or should know) in which context my comments are made. I’ve chided him for his memory issues, and this latest post demonstrates he is in need of immediate attention. No, that is not hyperbole, and I’m certainly not joking. Derek requires professional help because his memory is going south pronto.
Thus, Derek’s incessant point-missing is due to his inherent dishonesty and what seems to be a very real mental issue. He’s been told more than once that the best way to avoid skewering a scarecrow is to fully understand what his opponent is saying (asking clarifying questions in case of ambiguity) and restating the position in terms his opponent would fully agree with. Derek has even commended me on two or three occasions for getting his point right when others thought he was saying something else. His argumentative posture clearly shows that he’s not interested in the truth. He goes into win-at-all-cost mode every time his posts, and he reflexively reframes, deflects and misstates matters with the sole objective of propping his ego. What his juvenile mind fails to appreciate is that he would garner far more respect if he approaches philosophy like he claims to approach physical science. He could even be as agenda-driven as ever but still have the integrity to argue honorably. But Derek refuses to argue honorably because he’s a narcissist bent on destroying the faith of Christians. He knows that honorable argument would force him to admit error, and that price is too high for an ideologue.
LikeLike
July 6, 2023 at 5:18 am
“How a man can use a quote-response method and so completely miss the point of what he’s responding to can make sense in most instances only in the Twilight Zone.”
And ONCE AGAIN you make assertions without providing any evidence. You never seem to learn.
“one shouldn’t expect any better from Derek the Dummkopf.”
Oh cool, so now we’re using cute nicknames! Would you prefer to be Scalia the Sphincter or Scalia the Scrotum? I’m fine using either one, since they both embody your delightfully friendly demeanor perfectly. Or maybe…just maybe…we can dispense with the childish nicknames and just act like adults for once?
“I never said that I’m Catholic.”
Hmm, I seem to recall Paul saying something to that effect. If not, my bad and I apologize. So which one of the thousands of Christian denominations do you believe is the “one true” Christianity?
“I’ve chided him for his memory issues, and this latest post demonstrates he is in need of immediate attention. No, that is not hyperbole, and I’m certainly not joking. Derek requires professional help because his memory is going south pronto.”
And once again, you’re back to ad hominems instead of any supportable arguments of substance. And the ENTIRE REST of your post was just a litany of whining and complaining, to no purpose. What is the matter with you? Are you that insecure that you can’t handle disagreement? You’re a theist and I’m an atheist, and this forum is about contentious theistic issues…so OF COURSE we are going to disagree. But instead of making your arguments and counter arguments like a reasonable, honest interlocutor, you consistently and repeatedly resort to insults, ad hominems and other juvenile behavior. You’re such an angry, bitter person, Scalia, and all your words do is make you look small and petty. Just stop it. Be the better man. Aren’t you supposed to be all about forgiveness and turning the other cheek? Or do you only follow the parts of Christianity you like? You can be better than that, I’m sure of it. Do better and I promise I won’t treat you the way you treat me.
LikeLike
July 7, 2023 at 7:22 pm
Derek the Dummkopf writes:
Is Derek’s eyesight going too? I’ve told him time and again why I won’t be debating him, yet he harps on. Anybody but Derek is free to ask all the questions and ask for all the evidence he or she needs. Derek has proven his dishonesty, so it’s a wasted exercise trying to get him to see the light.
Once Derek learns to be honest and debate honorably, that’s a possibility, but his swamp-fevered prattle here continues to show he’s nowhere close to that.
Derek the Dingbat said this in reply to my accurate observation that his memory is going south. This of course is with respect to his mistating the Christian position on morality. I called him on it and showed that he doesn’t have a sweet clue what the Christian position is on morality (the substantially majority position in Christianity for a very long time), and now Derek (since he can’t remember the substance of that dialog) gropes around acting like he knows what he’s talking about while continuing to make a buffoon of himself.
This has all been explained to Derek the Dumbo repeatedly, but he can’t remember why I won’t debate him! He really needs professional help, and, again, that’s not hyperbole. I’m totally serious. For anybody interested, you can read for yourself:
Bye Bye Roe
and
Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a cause
LikeLike
July 19, 2023 at 4:58 am
What a disappointment, Scalia. I’ve given you every chance to step up and show yourself to be something other than a petty child constantly throwing tantrums over the smallest perceived slights. But no, you can’t even manage that. You throw out accusations, then run away when challenged and refuse to engage in debate. If you can’t handle losing arguments, what are you even doing here? Again, what a disappointment.
At any rate, I’m here to discuss different perspectives on religious topics, not hurl insults at each other. If you have nothing to offer but vitriol and bile, then you are of no use to anyone. Just know that you feed into the stereotype of the bitter Christian who is so full of hate and intolerance that he’s lost all capacity for rational thought. You’ll never find peace and happiness the way you are now, so I hope you eventually find your way out of that black pit.
Until then, you’re dismissed.
LikeLike
July 19, 2023 at 8:23 am
Derek the Dumbo writes:
The Dingbat doesn’t realize that I couldn’t care less what he thinks about me (even though he’s probably forgotten that I told him that). He has shown himself to be an arrant liar, and he continues to do so here. I’ve told him repeatedly why debating him is a waste of time, yet he uploads post after post pretending that I’m afraid to engage him lest I lose a debate. And he does this after I’ve repeatedly posted previous debates wherein he’s both had his backside handed to him and shown himself to be every bit as dishonest as I claim.
Ha! How many times has Derek the Dummkopf written that?? Is his mind so demented that he cannot remember what he wrote just weeks ago? I told him long before his “dismissal” that I have no interest in debating him, yet he wants to wrap himself in the mantle of breaking it off.
And this is another lie. Derek ISN’T here to discuss different perspectives on religious topics. He’s here to destroy the faith of Christians. I have proved multiple times over my willingness to engage him in good faith debate. When he runs into a logical brick wall (which is almost immediately), he reframes, deflects, lies and counterattacks to save face. When obvious errors are pointed out to him—errors any fifth-grader would recognize—he digs in his heels and tries to attack the other person for “not getting it.” He doesn’t deserve serious engagement. That would be the equivalent of casting one’s pearls before swine. The only thing he merits is ridicule.
Derek is a buffoon who likes to make fun of people without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike