The emotionality of belief

Research shows that most humans favour those who are close to them over those who are distant. We identify with and defend members of our own family over members of someone else's family; we're more likely to feel comfortable with people who speak our language and share our culture than with members of another culture, speaking a different language. At a theoretical level we like to subscribe to the view that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights, but at a day to day practical level we tend to favour our family and our tribe.

Membership of a tribe or a group provides familiarity and a sense of solidarity. When yourtribe is attacked, there is a natural instinct to defend. That defence is usually emotional.

So is there any chance of a rationalist engaging with a believer without the interference of emotionality?

Recent research suggests this is unlikely. In Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts, the authors conclude that 'when it comes to issues of emotional importance, convincing someone to change his or her existing beliefs appears to be a virtually hopeless undertaking'.

But perhaps we can at least encourage discussion. Believers and non-believers have much in common, even though they differ on matters of importance.

Evidence collected by social scientists in the 1970s looking into the development of moral reasoning in children confirmed the existence ofcommon moral principles of justice and fairness around the world. More recent research has shown these principles are essentially of two kinds: interpersonal morals and social conventions. Actions within the 'interpersonal moral domain' are those that affect the welfare or wellbeing of another person - an example would be a child hitting another child without provocation. By contrast, actions in the domain of social convention have no intrinsic interpersonal consequences but are simply dependent on their social context. For example, there is nothing intrinsically good or bad in a university student calling their lecturer 'Professor Singer' rather than 'Pete', but social convention in some societies makes the more formal address preferable.

Believers and non-believers share many interpersonal moral principles. They arise out of the human capacity to feel pleasure and pain, and to recognise and empathise with the pleasure and pain of others. Where we differ is in the social conventions we subscribe to and support.

Religions arise when the teachings of charismatic individuals are later codified by their followers. Common moral principles are brought to life through their teachings, through the parables and stories. Unfortunately these timeless and universal principles are mixed up with the social conventions of the day – prescriptions and proscriptions that have no intrinsic interpersonal consequences but are just "the way they did things then". Not touching a menstruating woman for example, or condemning homosexuality.

I think at least some of the emotionality could be taken out of discussions about belief if this distinction were made clear. Freethinkers should respect common moral principles, even if articulated in religious guise. Believers should reconsider religious principles that are simply social conventions in disguise – and be prepared to explain why they are still relevant.

If a believer interprets a question about their belief as an attack on common moral principles, it's no wonder they rise to the defence strongly and emotionally - a non-believer would probably do the same.

This is why I personally prefer to identify as a rationalist rather than as an atheist. Like it or not, atheism has become associated with a sort of amoral nihilism that is neither true nor fair but which nevertheless sets up an unhelpful antagonism with the religious. The freethought community would do better to be clear about what we share with believers (the common moral principles) and where we differ (specific social conventions).

Most Australians are 'culturally' Christian rather than religiously Christian, just as most Israelis are 'culturally Jewish' rather than religiously Jewish. Freethinkers may feel exasperated that groups like the Progressive Christians don't finally let go of all belief in some higher authority and just focus on good values and good deeds. But I think that will come. In the meantime, we should all be wary of inadvertently driving these cultural Christians into the arms of their more fundamentalist brethren.

William James, the great American philosopher of religion, made a useful distinction between healthy-minded and sick-souled religiousness.

Let's not harm the healthy minded in our attempt to cure the sick-souled.