Why do religious people rely on arguments from emotion and incredulity?

Question

Seriously, the last thing that is going to convince me of the magical sky pixy is some obvious dimwit using an argument from emotion-e.g. "why do you reject him when he loves you so much?!?" or "I just can't believe that everything is here without some force!"

Im not suprised to hear it from kids, but when the "adults" use these same lines it scares me.

Answer 1

Because it's all theists have

Answer 2

Why do non-religious people rely on arguments from scientific reasoning only?
Seriously, the last thing that is going to convince me there isn't a magical sky pixie is some obvious dimwit using an argument void of anything outside of scientific reasoning-e.g. "why do you accept him when there is no testable and/or provable data?" or "I just can't believe that everything is here by some force because I can't use the scientific method to prove that force exists!"

Answer 3

It really is scary how people divorce their brains from critical analysis and logical thought.

What's even scarier is that when I talk to religious friends of mine (the majority) I find that they actually make these infantile arguments. I try and stay away from this subjects with my friends for this reason.

I share that with the theists - I pretend that what is true (that my friends may not actually be worthy of the respect that I give them) is not true because I find it more comfortable to do so.

Answer 4

i assume it relies upon on why one can want to "help" a non secular idea... to those who fairly do trust, they fairly see no prefer to "help" their beliefs, understanding that what's non secular can not and may not be at a loss for words with what's actual. Having actual solutions is of direction not an same difficulty as having non secular solutions. Sciesnce can in basic terms provide actual solutions...and, easily, technology might want to be its very nature be issue to regulate as new info come to gentle. an staggering many human beings look to imagine that once technology has arise with an answer, it really is written in granite. those who easily are all in favour of medical study easily recognize better...and comprehend, too, that they are going to under no circumstances discover any "answer" that refutes a idea in God. as well, this argument is getting previous, drained, and trite. You adult men prefer to lease some new writers. Your cloth is putting out to bypass stale...

Answer 5

I agree that arguments are better when posed from a logical standpoint. I tend to think that Christians don't understand their faith enough to argue from anything other than emotion and incredulity. There are better ways to prove your point rather than stating, "Look around, God is in the trees, and the flowers--of course God exists." I don't understand why they don't see flaws in this "argument".

Answer 6

Quite plainly, the brains of the religiose are wired differently from the brains of rational people. I think it is an evolutionary type of thing. If it weren't for the fact that we're able to mate with them, I'd be advocating that we find a new species name for the religiose... Homo Moronicus, or Homo Gullibilus, or some such. There are subtleties at work, which seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight, to be appropriately incorporated into one's world-view However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... trying to figure out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.

*****************

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

Answer 7

It has never been an emotional issue for me. i've always thought that if you couldn't accept and believe the first five words of the Bible, you would have a real problem with the rest.

Answer 8

Such poor logic is used only when others are criticizing THEIR religious beliefs.

They have no problem identifying the flaws in that logic when they are analyzing other people's beliefs.

Answer 9

If the fulfilled prophecy of the Bible aren't evidence enough for you Ask me what you want to kn ow and I will provide an answer based on science... Jim

Answer 10

yeah, its kind of like saying you should pray to somebody way over in china because they love you so much. how much do you care?