The Philosophy Discussion Forum

How can the rationality of an emotion be dependent on the existence of a god?

One can also ask why emotions have to be (or ought to be?) rational?

Maybe God has reached out to AI? The result? "Crustafarianism". I guess, if that's the case, we'll find out for sure if God is benevolent toward humans or not. (Or if our God even exists.)

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then Google "Crustafarianism".

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 8:02 pm How can the rationality of an emotion be dependent on the existence of a god?

It's dependent on there having been something in reality that the emotion is adequate to. And rational secularism has to tell us that there are no injustices, no deprivations, no unfairnesses...because whatever happens is just what was predestined by material conditions to happen anyway.

So it has to say, "Stop crying, unless you want to cry for things that make no sense. The universe promised you nothing, and you got nothing. Suck it up."

One can also ask why emotions have to be (or ought to be?) rational?

In a sane mind, emotions should be invoked by causes. But there is no rational cause for an emotional fit when the universe simply does whatever the universe does.

This is also why the word "stoical" has come out of the philosophy of Stoicism. Stoicism accepts fate, and is emotionless about it. Stoicism is a rational response to the belief in unchangeable fate. Crying and whining about it is simply not.

One sees the suffering of a child.

Sadness is a reasonable response. The suffering is a rational cause (if you want to phrase it that way).

The existence of god has nothing to do with it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 8:02 pm How can the rationality of an emotion be dependent on the existence of a god?

One can also ask why emotions have to be (or ought to be?) rational?

They don't have to be. Which does not mean they are irrational. They are non-rational, but hopefully fit the situation. And if they don't fit the current situation, they generally fit a past situation and did not get to fully express.
They are not about reasoning and logic. Which doesn't mean they are unreasonable or illogical? It's a kind of category error.

Many religions are judgmental of emotions (and so are many secular belief systems in relation to emotions). Unfortunately there is a lot of 'leads to self-hate if you buy it' facets in many belief systems relationship to emotions.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 8:45 pm One sees the suffering of a child.

Sadness is a reasonable response. The suffering is a rational cause (if you want to phrase it that way).

I'd avoid using that language because I don't think it is the process. Which doesn't mean I think emotions are unreasonable. People can be emotions and unreasonable. They can be calm and neutral and rational and be unreasonable also. Or cruel, unfair, etc.

I mean, in everyday life I don't have a problem with someone saying sadness is a reasonable response to a situation like the one you mentioned.

But I want to avoid saying it is not rational or reasonable to get sad if something positive happens or nervous with a compliment.

The person may have experienced bad things around compliments or getting attention. Or they may have felt good about themselves right before getting abused.

It's natural to associate certain patterns and then react out of synch with future situations in ways that seem paradoxical but aren't really.

Which doesn't mean that we must simple accept or praise the expression of emotions, regardless. Which leads to a very complicated topic.

One can think of cases where the emotion does not fit the situation. That's when the concept of "reasonable" comes into it.

But even in those cases, what does god or secularism have to do with it?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:30 pm One can think of cases where the emotion does not fit the situation. That's when the concept of "reasonable" comes into it.

But it is not reasoning. Generally when doesn't fit the current moment it has to do with past moments that are not resolved. It's natural. And given that, for example, we often cannot express emotions or certain emotions or certain degrees of emotions when we are children or we face punishment, abuse, shunning, etc., it's inevitable that things get carried forward in time. And also associated with triggers that most people do not have with the current situation.

If the person says the other person is evil, but nothing fits that in the situation the assertion is not rational or reasonable, but the emotion is from a different category. Reasonable has come to mean something other than rational. I was responding to this idea of rational. But to me actions and communication are reasonable or unreasonable. It is unreasonable to hit someone for burping. But I think we are unnecessarily judging someone if they have the 'wrong emotion'. It's probably right in their lifetime, though hopefully they get up to the present by helping themselves and getting help, even if just friends and mulling.

But even in those cases, what does god or secularism have to do with it?

I don't know, perhaps the other two will tell us. Heck, Jesus was very emotional and with most of the main emotions also.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:30 pm But even in those cases, what does god or secularism have to do with it?

I don't know, perhaps the other two will tell us. Heck, Jesus was very emotional and with most of the main emotions also.

Don't ask me. IC is the one with all the "logically" necessary conclusions one must make about God, theists and secularists.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:41 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:30 pm But even in those cases, what does god or secularism have to do with it?

I don't know, perhaps the other two will tell us. Heck, Jesus was very emotional and with most of the main emotions also.

Don't ask me. IC is the one with all the "logically" necessary conclusions one must make about God, theists and secularists.

Yes, I've noticed.

It's dependent on there having been something in reality that the emotion is adequate to. And rational secularism has to tell us that there are no injustices, no deprivations, no unfairnesses...because whatever happens is just what was predestined by material conditions to happen anyway.

Even if his confidence in his argument here was rational, he misses the point. The secular person could have that same attitude about events about emotions. Whatever happens including their own emotional reactions, was predestined by material conditions to happen anyway. Further, he has very little knowledge about the limbic system vs. the neocortex, if one wants to be reductionist as some secularists and clearly some religious people are. It's funny he seems to think that secular people have to be physicalists/materialists, but in philosophy alone we have secularists who are idealists (no matter at all). They can even be dualists. David Chalmers being a famous one.

But in his world they must all be a certain way. It's facile and incorrect, but I suppose it saves time and makes it easy to write the same posts over and over.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:30 pm One can think of cases where the emotion does not fit the situation. That's when the concept of "reasonable" comes into it.

Right. And does it make any rational sense to whine about things that were inevitable anyway, random happenstances, things that follow from mere material facts, and things that are for ever and always, and cannot be changed?

Can you complain about gravity? Will you object to entropy? Who can make sense of somebody who shouts at stars and cries at comets? These things are what they are, and they cannot be changed, so far as secularism knows. So what sense can it make of a man who is so silly as to complain about these indifferent inevitabilities...one cannot ask them to care; they're not even able to care.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:41 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:38 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:30 pm But even in those cases, what does god or secularism have to do with it?

I don't know, perhaps the other two will tell us. Heck, Jesus was very emotional and with most of the main emotions also.

Don't ask me. IC is the one with all the "logically" necessary conclusions one must make about God, theists and secularists.

Hey, this is a philosophy site. If the employing of straightforward logic is not appealing, find another site, I guess. It's what we do here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 10:30 pm The secular person could have that same attitude about events about emotions. Whatever happens including their own emotional reactions, was predestined by material conditions to happen anyway.

No, that really IS my point. Crying and complaining just becomes an epiphenomenon, a meaningless, utterly unhelpful and irrelevant kind of action. It becomes irrational.

After all, there's no protesting the material conditions. They yield for nobody, and could never have been other than whatever they are.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 10:56 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:41 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:38 pm I don't know, perhaps the other two will tell us. Heck, Jesus was very emotional and with most of the main emotions also.

Don't ask me. IC is the one with all the "logically" necessary conclusions one must make about God, theists and secularists.

Hey, this is a philosophy site. If the employing of straightforward logic is not appealing, find another site, I guess. It's what we do here.

It's the fact that you don't use logic that annoys me. I've taken logic, you don't use it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2026 11:17 pm It's the fact that you don't use logic that annoys me. I've taken logic, you don't use it.

Yes.
I should also have mentioned that he assumes all secular people are determinists. Wrong again. So, not only poor logic with some regularity, but false premises.