One of the most honest and heart-wrenching objections to Christianity that I’ve ever heard goes like this: “I would absolutely love to believe that Christianity is true. The idea that I am unconditionally loved, that I will live forever in paradise after death, that an all-powerful God will hear my prayers, that someone good is looking after me, and all the rest… I would love to believe that message is true. But I just can’t bring myself to do it. It sounds like wishful thinking, and I’m too realistic for that.”
Or as Freud said, “Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.”
This is a very important objection to Christianity because it strikes at the core of the Christian faith: the good news that God loves us. The Christian faith offers an incredibly hopeful, optimistic view of life. If this central theme of the Christian faith becomes a reason to avoid Christianity in the first place, what a stunning reversal!
In light of the stakes, we need to consider this doubt from a variety of angles.
Wishful Thinking is a Human Problem
The atheist can say to the Christian, “Look, you just believe in an afterlife because it is appealing to you. I understand what you like about the idea of eternal life in a mansion, where all the streets are paved with gold. But just because that idea sounds good doesn’t mean it is real or true.”
However, the Christian is on equally firm ground in saying to the atheist, “Look, you just reject the idea of an afterlife because that is appealing to you. I understand what you like about the idea of death being the end, because it gives you free license to do whatever you want. But just because that idea sounds good doesn’t mean it is real or true.”
This is an ancient exchange. As Augustine put it, “No man says, ‘There is no God’ but he whose interest it is there should be none.”
A fairer perspective is that everyone, whatever their worldview, is tempted to indulge in wishful thinking.
Accusing Others of Wishful Thinking Might Be Illogical
In Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer summarizes the findings of a survey of 10,000 Americans on their belief in God:
Notice that the intellectually based reasons offered for belief in God — “the good design of the universe” and “the experience of God in everyday life” — which occupied first and second place when people were describing their own beliefs dropped to sixth and third place, respectively, when they were describing the beliefs of others. Indeed, when reflecting on others’ beliefs, the two most common reasons cited were emotion-based (and fear-averse!): personal comfort (“ comforting, relieving, consoling”) and social comfort (“raised to believe”).
Sulloway and I believe that these results are evidence of an intellectual attribution bias, in which people consider their own beliefs as being rationally motivated, whereas they see the beliefs of others as being emotionally driven…This intellectual attribution bias appears to be equal opportunity on the subject of God. (Shermer, Michael (2010-04-01). Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (pp. 37-38). Macmillan. Kindle Edition).
This intellectual attribution bias, or in-group favoritism, leads us to have an inaccurate perception of others. As a commenter on the Reasons for God Facebook page once wrote, “Religion = self deception. Ironic, isn’t it?” The irony was heavy indeed.
Wishful Thinking Doesn’t Make an Idea False
To dismiss someone’s idea or argument, simply because they believe it on the basis of wishful thinking, is to commit a logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy occurs whenever we attack the source of someone’s belief rather than the evidence for or against the idea itself. It is irrational and intellectually lazy to dismiss another perspective with such cheap accusations. Reason requires that we dig deeper.
Let’s say that a given atheist, Paul, believes there is no God only because he had bad experiences in church while growing up, and now feels upset whenever he thinks about God and religion. Ok, fair enough. However, if there is, in actual fact, no God, then Paul’s belief “God does not exist” is entirely correct.
So it would be an error for a Christian to accuse Paul of being wrong because of his motivation. Why Paul’s believes “there is no God” is entirely irrelevant to whether or not Paul’s belief is true. This is the case whether Paul is a theist, an atheist, a Buddhist, or Muslim. (An independent and substantially different concern is how persuasive we are in explaining our beliefs to others).
Why Not Try Optimism?
There seems to be an undercurrent to this doubt, the sense that pessimism is somehow more ‘realistic’ than optimism.
But why?
At worst, this begs the question against Christianity, taking for granted that atheism is already established, and we have to come to terms with this reality, like it or not.
At best, this tendency serves as a rational guide to keep us from accepting unsubstantiated claims just because they sound good. (For instance, this is an excellent principle to follow when watching nearly all advertisements).
But in general, I find that this preference for pessimism is overdone.
Perhaps the resonance between the message of God’s love and the desires of our hearts is a clue that we are made for God.
Perhaps the prevalence of hope is an indication that the future will be better, even considering the inevitability of death.
Perhaps our transcendent experiences of beauty, or love, or joy, are pointers to a Greater Beauty, Love, and Joy.
To dismiss this out of hand, just because it is good news, is to short-circuit the rational process. If Christianity is true, than optimism is far more realistic than pessimism!
As a matter of mere pragmatics, it is wise to take a little effort and see if good claims can be substantiated.
When I see an advertisement for a particularly amazing product, it often tempts me to at least research the product and see if it is really worth purchasing. No doubt about it: Christianity makes stupendous claims. All the more reason, pragmatically speaking, to see if they are true.
Summary
We could hammer away at this objection from more angles: for instance, Christianity makes uncompromising demands on how you must live. In my experience, it has been the moral rigor, more than the good promises, that often pushes people away from Christianity. Perhaps you can think of other ways that wishful thinking affects what you and others believe.
Most importantly, we can create a far more civil atmosphere for discussion if we hold off on accusing each other of wishful thinking. Maybe after you get to know someone well, and have a foundation of trust, and there’s abundant evidence that they hold a belief out of wishful thinking, then you might suggest that they find a better basis for their worldview. But this is a weak way to start a conversation (especially on the Internet).
I encourage you to give others the benefit of the doubt. Look to understand the good reasons that led them to their conclusions. Be humble about the real reasons why you believe what you believe. When we look for the good in others, we are far more likely to start great conversations and make new friends.
Discussion Questions:
1. What do you believe on the basis of wishful thinking?
2. Do you habitually tend towards pessimism or optimism?
3. How can you realistically take account of wishful thinking in your own life and relationships?
This post was originally published at Reasons for God.
The dialogue scenario you offered under Wishful Thinking Being A Human Problem presented this: “I understand what you like about the idea of death being the end, because it gives you free license to do whatever you want.”
I have not once ever heard a non-believer claim the desire for a free license to do whatever is pleased. And I’ll offer that any critically thought non-believer, who has the capacity to think independently from a bible, surely understands what it is to be ethical. In most cases, it’s the pursuit of ethics that leads one away from a bible to begin with.
– Chris
I think the temptation is rarely to follow *no* ethical code, but is often to follow an ethical code of our own moral preferences rather than one that is defined by some other authority. That is the more seductive form of “doing whatever you want” – almost everyone wants to feel that he or she is a good person, but we want to define virtue in such a way that it allows us to live by only the rules that we choose.
That’s a temptation for pretty much everyone, I think – obviously, most of us will bear an emotional bias against several religions because they would make demands on us that we don’t like. The challenge is to be able to find the truth and deal with it on its own terms, in spite of our prejudices.
Hi Chris,
Yes, but this is a consistent belief from within the Christian worldview. For instance, as Psalm 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.” Or as I quote Huxley in True Reason:
“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust” (Gilson, Tom; Weitnauer, Carson (2012-03-09). True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism (Kindle Locations 294-297). Patheos Press. Kindle Edition).
Thanks for engaging Carson. In response, an objective morality (if that does at all exist) may only exist if it has reason – if not, no harm will be done if the principles are not followed. Wouldnt you agree? Basically, an issue like sexual liberation will only have its limits where reason permits, and shouldnt at all be limited simply because someone says so.
I believe that it is easy to fool ourselves in thinking that we understand something, but really we should take a step back and take a deep breath. The idea of an objective morality is too far beyond what the mind can imagin to begin with. This is because an objective morality is really like a code of ethics subjective of Gods well being. Now, who is to claim that they know what it is that is in the Lords best interest? And only when we do fully understand the terms of the Lords well being may we correctly claim which behaviors of us are objectively moraly acceptable.
Thanks for your time.
– Chris