Too often the argument is made that one can “know” existence by means other than through rationality. These claims are made out of a confusion between knowledge of reality and knowledge of subjective perceptions of reality. Reality is “the thing itself.” Perceptions are the ways in which we “take in” reality. Our perceptions are colored by our personal experiences, emotions, whether or not we’ve eaten, or had sex, etc.

For instance, if you haven’t eaten all day by dinner time you may well discover that the people around you are all “assholes.” The waiter, the cook, the guy driving behind you on the way to the restaurant, etc., they’re all assholes. This, of course, is not the reality of the situation; it’s the way you perceive it when you’re hungry. It is emotionally true for you to see them all this way, because your perception of the world is skewed by your physiology at the time. You feel that it is true. You build a rational case of why it is true: “That asshole cut me off,” “the waiter is taking forever to take my order,” “the cook is taking too long,” etc. But soon, you eat your meal and everyone is suddenly less of a problem. While it is possible that everyone around truly was mistreating you until you ate, it is not very likely. As the old saying goes, if you meet three assholes in one day, it’s likely that you are the asshole.

As is demonstrated by the example above, feeling that something is true, perceiving it to be true, being certain that it is true, does not make it true. Our perceptions of reality are often skewed. Our emotions are not to be trusted when making decision. Our decisions, as well as our beliefs, must be rationally based in order to best reflect the realities of existence. This is not to say that we all act rationally all the time. It is not to say that we have certainty about all aspects of reality. And it is not to say that emotions are unimportant. Emotions play a very important role in coloring our perception of reality, and the effects that actions have on people. Being depressed, scared, lonely, happy, angry, etc. are all valid and real emotional states of existence. These states of existence are Emotional Truths, which should not be confused with Objective Truths. If I am depressed and feeling psychological pain, this is a real state of existence, but my melancholy state does not make the world melancholy. This is similar to the fact that objects do not have intrinsic color. No object actually is red, for instance. Our perception of red is a play of light on our eyes. Change the color of the light and the color of the object changes. Look at the same object under 60 feet of water and it doesn’t look red at all. Our emotions play a similar role when perceiving the world. We can often posit qualities on the world that simply are not qualities of the world, but qualities of our perception. This knowledge is important to keep in mind when we approach the question of theism versus atheism.

Many theists will try to short-circuit debate about atheism by not actually discussing it rationally. I have encountered the obnoxious theist who “feels sorry” for me. I have also encountered the condescending theist who is certain that I will “grow up” and discover that there is a god. And of course there are those who say that “there are no atheists in foxholes.” This last cliched argument is in actuality incorrect, but I understand their point, which is that those in trouble turn to god. Turning to god in a time of trouble, of course, is not real Faith and does not make god real. But what of the emotional arguments that people make? I feel god is real. God is love and I know this is true because I feel His love. Well, emotionally driven arguments are illogical by nature. Basing one’s philosophical beliefs on knee-jerk reactions to the emotions they experience is inherently dangerous. Emotions are not means to understanding reality and none can withstand any real scrutiny. Let’s take this example:

Joe: You believe that God exists?

Frank: I know that God exists, because I feel him in my heart.

Joe: Prove he exists.

Frank: Do you love your mother?

Joe: Yes.

Frank: Prove it.

Frank’s question, which some theists will use as a “clever” rebuttal is actually not a rebuttal at all; it’s a non-sequitur.   [And would be better if asked as "does your mother love you?  prove it.]  This emotionally driven argument, and in this case literally dealing with emotions, makes no case for god. I may not be able to prove that I love my mother, but I certainly can prove that my mother exists in the first place. Joe’s question has to do with the very existence of god. He is not really questioning Frank’s beliefs on the matter. He wants to know how Frank knows something exists, not how Frank feels about something existing. The difference is not really all that subtle and yet many people ignore the differences altogether. But what if we change the words around while keeping the same basic arguments in place?

Joe: You believe that the Tooth Fairy left a quarter under your pillow?

Frank: I know that he did, because I can feel it in my heart.

Joe: Prove that he did.

Frank: Does you love your Mother?

Joe: Yes.

Frank: Prove it.

I’ll grant that I am being perhaps a bit flippant with this new dialogue. After all, I have really only replaced one fictional being with another, while positing a behavior with the Tooth Fairy, but none with god. So let’s take a look at a more realistic, but just as flawed emotional reasoning.

Joe: You believe that Saddam Hussein has WMDs?

Frank: I know he has WMDs, because I can feel it in my gut.

Joe: How do you know?

Frank: Do you love freedom?

Joe: Yes.

Frank: Prove it.

It is clear that Frank is not actually answering Joe’s question, but avoiding it. This example loses some of the absurdity because of the fact that we know that WMDs exist and we know that at one time they existed in Iraq, but the counter-argument that Frank makes is the same. He doesn’t address the question Joe raises, he changes the topic.

Emotions are not a way of knowing the world; they are a way of perceiving the world. This distinction cannot be overstated. Perceptions inform behaviors, but they are not a means to knowledge. Loving one’s mother does not actually tell anyone anything about the nature of existence. But let’s grant Frank the “proof” he desires.

Frank: Do you love your mother?

Joe: Yes.

Frank: Prove it.

Joe: Well, I spent all my savings to move back home from Antarctica where I was following my life-long dream to be a scientist, because my mother was sick and needed me to care for her.

Frank: That’s a beautiful and caring story, you must be very devoted to your mother. Maybe you even love her.

Joe: Maybe?!?! How can you say maybe?!

Frank: Well, everything you did could have been done out of a sense of duty, and not love.

And of course, Frank is right. Joe cannot really prove his love to anyone. It is an “emotion truth.” I define “emotional truths” as “feelings that color our perception of the world.” Emotional truths, unlike Objective Truths, can change. Objectives Truths are “accurate assertions about the state of ‘objective’ reality.” What we currently perceive to be Objective Truths may well turn out to be false, but it does not mean that reality itself has changed. Emotional Truths may well change because they are truths that are only true to the person who is experiencing them. Planes do not fly on Laws understood through Emotional Truth; they fly on Laws understood through Objective Truth. Emotional Truth is very helpful in having an enjoyable wedding day (and night), but it is truly useless in understanding how the world operates. This is not to say that one should not take Emotional Truth into account when trying to understand the world. Certainly, one must take these perceptions into account, because they are often what motivates human behavior, but one must study them from as objective a standpoint as possible, while recognizing that one is never fully objective. This is the only way to have a fully fleshed out understanding of our Existence. For instance, Objective Truth can tell us that Mr. X murdered Mr. Z with the candle stick in the library. Science can tell us all the “juicy” objective details: we know that Mr. X was the one who done it, ’cause his finger prints were on the candle stick, his skin was under Mr. Z’s nails (from the struggle) and there was a video recording from the library’s surveillance camera. We can say with some certainty that Mr. X murdered Mr. Z. However, we learn even more when we “objectively” consider Emotional Truth.

As it turns out, we bring in Mr. X’s wife, Mrs. X. Mrs. X reveals that Mr. X was a jealous man who was prone to fits of rage. Now, we cannot know with any certainty that this is true of Mr. X based solely on Mrs. X’s testimony. After all, Mrs. X could well be lying to frame Mr. X, but when you consider her testimony along with the evidence in the paragraph above, you start to see a more complex picture, and it is one in which her statement at the very least seems to be true. We take Mrs. X at her word, because she is under oath and we have other evidence which supports her statement. She has gained our confidence. She tells us how she had fallen out of love with Mr. X, but was frightened to leave him because his rages. Here, we see the effects of an Emotional Truth on her behavior. She was frightened, that is an Emotional Truth. She did not leave her husband, that is an objective behavior (she stays with him). But she did fall in love with Mr. Z (Emotional Truth), because Mr. Z is hansoms and gentle and kind. Whether or not Mr. Z is actually any of these things is beside the point. What is important is that Mrs. X perceives him to be these things, and therefore it is true to her. [As a quick side note, that is the point of Emotional Truth, it is true to a specific subjective perceiver of existence.] So, Mrs. X falls in love with Mr. Z and they seduce each other in the hallway outside the library. Mr. X catches them in the act. Mrs. X escapes out a window, but Mr. Z meets his untimely death via candlestick to the back of the head.

Now, we have a much more complex view of the reality of this past event. We have both objective evidence that leads us to believe the statement, “Mr. X murdered Mr. Z with a candlestick in the library,” is Objectively True, and we have objectively considered the Emotional Truths of Mrs. X, which leads us to believe that the statement, “Mr. X in a fit of passion murdered Mr. Z with a candlestick in the library, because he was jealous,” is True. Now, I am reluctant to state that it is objectively true that these were Mr. X’s motives, but it is plausible. Perhaps Mr. X actually was coming in to murder Mr. Z because he just discovered that Mr. Z had raped Mr. X’s son. We obviously would need to have the son, Mr. X and Mrs. X all on the stand and ask them questions about all these aspects. In the end, we cannot be certain of the Emotional Truths surrounding the events, especially given the fact that people lie, and worse yet, people construct memories. Someone could honestly believe that something happened, when it never did. It would be Emotionally True to them, but it would be objectively false.

But now let’s bring this back to god.

Frank may well believe that he knows that god exists. And to him, based on his claim, god does exist. But, just because god exists in someone’s mind, that does not make god a reality. There are no subjective truths about objective reality. Imagine if Mrs. X made all the same claims that I attributed to her above, but that the video tape showed not Mr. X, but Mrs. X killing Mr. Z. Her claims would be thrown out the window. We would question everything she had to say. She may even believe what she is saying, and in that sense it would be emotionally true to her, but it would not be objectively true.

An even more pervasive example is that of Santa Claus. Children believe that Santa is real. Parents lie to their children in order to keep up the illusion. Grown men dress up as Santa and sit at the Mall listening to kids wishes. On December 25^th, the kids wake up and discover presents under the tree that have come “from Santa Claus.” Films are made about this mythic, jolly fellow who has magic powers and magic reindeer. Children ask rational questions and parents give them seemingly rational answers. “How does he get to all those houses in one night?” “He operates outside the time-space continuum.” Children can point to literally millions of examples of Santa Claus existing, because we have created this illusion for them. They really, truly believe in his existence and for them it is Emotional Truth that Santa Claus exists.

But he doesn’t.

To be clear, I don’t have a problem with children believing in Santa Claus. I have a problem with adults believing in Santa Claus, the Eastern Bunny, Zeus and God. It would be one thing if their emotional “realities” didn’t interfere with the lives of others, but they do. 9-11 is an example of this. Adults need to come to terms with the reality that there is no proof of god’s existence, and believing something to be true, based on an emotional experience, is extremely dangerous. Sure, it is helpful to be in love with your spouse on your wedding day, and all the romantic things that people do because of their emotions can be very life enriching. But emotions are no way of understanding existence itself and are certainly not a moral guide. While there are benign theistic beliefs that say that god is love, the malign theistic beliefs say that god is jealous and call on people to kill those of different belief or no belief at all. Both can be believed through emotional perception to be “true,” but neither is Objectively True and to allow one to be treated “as Truth” is to open the door for the other to be treated as Truth as well. Neither should be treated as such.

I am not a heartless, cold and emotionless person. Indeed, I am actually a very sensitive person by nature. I make a conscious effort to set my emotions aside when addressing an issue. This certainly is not fool proof. I have been wrong before and will be wrong again. I try to learn from my mistakes and I make a very deliberate effort to acknowledge my mistakes as well (see my posts on the War in Iraq for some examples). I see emotions as being very important in Life. I don’t know too terribly much about the chemicals that are released in my body that make happiness and other such emotions so pleasant, but they work well and I enjoy them. Being aware that there is a chemical reaction taking place in my body certainly doesn’t undermine my enjoyment of positive emotions. It also doesn’t excuse my behaviors based in negative emotions. This is part of the reason why we need to acknowledge and control the role our emotions play in our lives and decisions. Pointing to positive emotional experiences as proof of god is false evidence. Goodness and love are no more telling of god than are hatred and murder. There is no room for emotions in the debate of whether or not it is True “god exists.” “Emotional Atheists” (a rare occasion to capitalize the word atheist!) are just as false and irrational as “Emotional Theists.” Positions on god that are obtained by such an arbitrary means are weak and pathetic. The Atheist who believes that there is no God because something “bad” happened is just as wrong as the Theist who believes that there is a God because something “good” happened. Emotions skew perception of reality. They never make perception clearer. At best, a content emotional state allows one to focus his rational mind on philosophy, science and art. These three Human activities are the best that Humanity has to offer and are the best means for understanding existence. Science helps us to understand the physical realities of the world. Philosophy helps us understand Truth and how to live in the world. Art allows us to bridge the gulf between one consciousness and another. There is nothing that religious Faith offers us that cannot be achieved through one of these three pursuits.

Here's my guess. If the economy goes up, Obama's rating will too. If the economy goes down, so will Obama's rating. Now let's watch it right here. It may not happen immediately, but it will usually follow.

Subscribe to my RSS Feed