Appraising Objections to Practical Apatheism

Abstract

This paper addresses the plausibility of practical apatheism: an attitude of apathy or indifference about philosophical questions pertaining to God’s existence grounded in the belief that they lack practical significance. Since apatheism is rarely discussed, we begin by clarifying the position and explaining how it differs from some of the other positions one may take with regard to the existence of God. Afterward, we examine six distinct objections to practical apatheism. Each of these objections posits a different reason for thinking that belief in God is practically significant. Five of these objections prove unsuccessful. The sixth, which appeals to the practical significance of belief in God with respect to our fates in the afterlife, is more promising but nonetheless encounters significant obstacles. Since the success of this objection is controversial, whether we have good grounds to reject practical apatheism should be similarly controversial, and the view should be given further examination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Assuming that practical apatheism were the appropriate attitude to take toward EQs, whether EQs would therefore deserve less philosophical attention depends on one’s views regarding how the practical significance of a topic of inquiry should affect its worthiness of being examined. Some may argue, for instance, that the question of whether the external world exists is a topic worthy of philosophical examination even if how we answer it has no impact on how we live. In this paper, we take no stand on the relationship between an issue’s practical significance and its all-things-considered philosophical importance. As we discuss in the following section, we leave open the possibility that there can be worthwhile intellectual reasons for pursuing topics of inquiry that lack practical significance.

  2. 2.

    One might worry that even if we adequately appraise these six objections to practical apatheism, there might still be other objections that offer more decisive reasons to reject the view. While this concern is understandable, no single paper could address every possible objection to practical apatheism. Given that apatheism (in any form) is a rather underexplored philosophical position, we must begin with the objections that already have a firm basis in the literature and proceed from there.

  3. 3.

    Some philosophers have addressed a position similar in spirit to apatheism. Guy Kahane (2011), for instance, briefly discusses whether an indifferent attitude toward God’s existence could be justified (pp. 677–678), though it is not clear that this attitude precisely captures apatheism as we have defined it. Similarly, Kraay and Dragos (2013) briefly discuss indifferentism – “the claim that it would neither be far better nor far worse if God exists” (p. 158; original emphasis). Indifferentism is a claim about how the value of the universe is impacted by God’s existence, and clearly, it is much different than apatheism. It is perfectly coherent for someone to think the universe as a whole would be better (or worse) if God exists and thereby reject indifferentism while also holding that this fact about the universe’s value does not matter for her as an individual and therefore does not make her concerned about EQs.

  4. 4.

    As we will address in a later section, however, we doubt that an apatheist who believes in God will be able to endorse traditional theistic beliefs about the afterlife.

  5. 5.

    For more detailed presentations of the main argument in this paragraph and the concept of self-transcendence more generally, see Partridge (1981) and Nolt (2010).

  6. 6.

    Just in the Bible, one can find justifications of the following behaviors: attempted human sacrifice (Genesis 22), murder over religious differences (Deuteronomy 13), murder and rape (Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20, Judges 21), the tacit approval of slavery (Ephesians 6), and administration of capital punishment for the following activities: witchcraft (Exodus 22), homosexual acts (Leviticus 20), adultery (Leviticus 20), and women losing their virginity before their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22).

  7. 7.

    Kraay (n.d., pp. 7–8) makes a similar criticism of Hasker’s response.

  8. 8.

    This observation also explains in part why a shift from theism to atheism is unlikely to impact moral motivation significantly. Many theists may explain their moral motivation with at least partial reference to God, which suggests that their theism contributes in some way to their moral motivation even if it is not essential to it. In practice, however, we do not see a significant difference in the incentives that theists have to act morally in comparison to non-theists – likely because their central motivation originates in facts about their psychology and biology that are not tied to their evaluations of these abstract issues.

  9. 9.

    In fact, rational deliberation primarily serves as a source of post-hoc justifications for otherwise automatic evaluative judgments (Haidt 2001).

  10. 10.

    The idea that some activities are ends in themselves – that is, they do not serve to advance any further end – traces back to Aristotle (1962), and these activities are commonly employed in accounts of what makes life meaningful (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, pp. 31–37; Audi 2005, pp. 337–341).

  11. 11.

    One might wonder, however, whether people’s actual behavior would correspond with the philosophical arguments we have presented. For example, there may be no good reasons to think that God is necessary for a meaningful life, but it may be the case that people who relinquish their belief in God feel as if their lives are suddenly meaningless. In one respect, this provides a clear reason for apathy toward EQs: caring about EQs can lead us into unnecessary and irrational despair!

    A more substantive response draws on psychological data. A test case for this empirical reality might be those social psychological studies of the reactions of people who are directly confronted with clear disconfirmation of strongly held beliefs (Balch et al. 1983; Festinger et al. 1956). Some ignore or otherwise rationalize away the disconfirmation. Others shift the focus of their beliefs, such that the disconfirmation is no longer relevant. Still others accept the disconfirmation and walk away from their beliefs entirely. Importantly, for the third group, the act of changing one’s beliefs is not enough, by itself, to usefully predict how a person will psychologically react. Rather, people react to the events in their lives, such as a disconfirmed expectation or a surprising if disturbing insight, based on who they are (i.e., their self-identity, their personality traits) and what social influences are operating on them at the time (e.g., do they have a strong social support system?). Thus, we are left with probabilities rather than certainties, and so the question becomes: is it likely that people who relinquish their belief in God will feel as if their lives are meaningless (and to feel this as if it were of great practical significance rather than, say, a passing mood)? To this question, we can only return to our discussion of meaning and to the empirical reality that atheists do not report living lives that are less meaningful than theists.

  12. 12.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this concern to our attention.

  13. 13.

    In a similar manner, we might expect psychologists to have some familiarity with the history of psychology or evolutionary biologists to be especially knowledgeable about Charles Darwin.

  14. 14.

    One may worry, for instance, that Pascal’s wager ignores the fact that there are many possible deities and that we are, therefore, very likely to believe in the wrong God even if we reject atheism. Others may doubt that a benevolent God would reward those who believe only on self-interested reasons (rather than for moral or spiritual reasons) while punishing truth-seeking skeptics. Michael Martin (1983) has even reformulated Pascal’s wager as an argument for atheism.

  15. 15.

    Of course, if our beliefs in God affect how others fare in the afterlife, then we might have moral obligations to alter our beliefs (if we can) on that person’s behalf, but since a deity who allocated rewards and punishments in this way would not seem ethical, it is unclear why we would trust this deity to treat those inhabiting the afterlife in ways consistent with our behavior.

  16. 16.

    This condition assumes that an afterlife would be eternal or at least extremely long (relative to an ordinary human life), an assumption held by many theists. Some may reject this assumption, but doing so would also entail that the consequences of having the wrong belief about the afterlife would be much less severe than they would be if the afterlife was unending. Thus, as the afterlife shortens in length, this objection to apatheism gets proportionally weaker.

  17. 17.

    A reviewer suggests that the mere knowledge that the truth of theism increases the probability of a personal afterlife might be sufficient to motivate an interest in EQs. If that is the case, then only the first of these five claims (which secures the notion that the afterlife will be one that we can personally experience) would be necessary to generate an objection to practical apatheism.

    We do not think this picture is accurate, however. Even if a personal afterlife is more probable given the truth of theism, we do not think this will have practical significance if the other conditions are not met. One could reason that an afterlife is more likely on the truth of theism, but if she also cannot see, for instance, a reliable way to control what kind of afterlife she experiences – for example, because she thinks that God’s judgments about how people are treated in the afterlife is not based on having the correct beliefs about God; or because she believes God’s judgments about who receives good and bad afterlives is arbitrary; or because she cannot reliably determine what beliefs she is supposed to have – then she does not have a reason to spend time investigating EQs. Her fate would be out of her hands, and so from a practical standpoint, there is no reason for her answers to EQs to affect the way she lives. Similarly, if she thinks all possible afterlives would be equally desirable (or undesirable), the potential increase in the probability of an afterlife would not give her a practical reason to investigate EQs because the quality of her afterlife would not be affected by how she answers EQs. Again, she lacks a reason to change how she lives.

  18. 18.

    For a concise overview of these problems, see Perry (1978).

  19. 19.

    We do not mean to imply that McKim would endorse practical apatheism as we have defined it. In fact, some of his remarks about the importance of religious beliefs for the people who hold them appear to be in tension with some of the beliefs a practical apatheist would hold (McKim 2001, pp. 137–138). Our point is only that this particular argument – held in conjunction with certain other views – could clearly yield support for practical apatheism.

References

  1. Adams, R. (1987). The virtue of faith and other essays in philosophical theology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aquinas, T. (1920). Prima secundae partis. Summa theologica (trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province) (2nd and revised ed.). London: Burns Oates and Washbourne. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/. Accessed 15 February 2012.

  3. Aristotle. (1962). Nicomachean ethics (trans. M. Ostwald). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  4. Audi, R. (2005). Intrinsic value and meaningful life. Philosophical Papers, 34(3), 331–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Balch, R. W., Farnsworth, G., & Wilkins, S. (1983). When the bombs drop: Reactions to disconfirmed prophecy in a millennial sect. Sociological Perspectives, 26(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Budimir, M. (2008). Apatheism: The new face of religion? Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy, 45, 87–93.

  7. Chrzan, K. (1994). Necessary gratuitous evil: An oxymoron revisited. Faith and Philosophy, 11(1), 134–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics (3rd ed.). Wheaton: Crossway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer, J. M. (2009). Why immortality is not so bad. In Our stories: Essays on life, death, and free will (pp. 79–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gebauer, J. E., & Maio, G. R. (2012). The need to belong can motivate belief in God. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 465–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hasker, W. (1992). The necessity of gratuitous evil. Faith and Philosophy, 9(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hasker, W. (1997). O’Connor on gratuitous natural evil. Faith and Philosophy, 14(3), 388–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hasker, W. (2004a). Can God permit “just enough” evil? In Providence, evil, and the openness of God (pp. 81–94). London: Routledge.

  16. Hasker, W. (2004b). Providence, evil and the openness of god. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hedberg, T. (2014). Epistemic supererogation and its implications. Synthese, 191(15), 3621–3637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hick, J. (1992). The universality of the golden rule. In J. Runzo (Ed.), Ethics, religion, and the good society: New directions in a pluralistic world (pp. 155–166). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

  19. Howard-Snyder, D., & Howard-Snyder, F. (1999). Is theism compatible with gratuitous evil? American Philosophical Quarterly, 36(2), 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hume, D. (1993). An enquiry concerning human understanding (ed. E. Steinberg) (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.

  21. Kahane, G. (2011). Should we want god to exist? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82(3), 674–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kavka, G. (2007). A reconciliation project. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ethical theory: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 101–113). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kay, A. C., Shepherd, S., Blatz, C. W., Chua, S. N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). For God (or) country: The hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 725–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kraay, K. J. (n.d.). William Hasker on gratuitous evil. http://www.philosophy.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/William-Hasker-on-Gratuitous-Evil.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2016.

  25. Kraay, K. J., & Dragos, C. (2013). On preferring God’s non-existence. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(2), 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Martin, M. (1983). Pascal’s wager as an argument for not believing in god. Religious Studies, 19, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McKim, R. (2001). Religious ambiguity and religious diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moore, J. T., & Leach, M. M. (2015). Dogmatism and mental health: A comparison of the religious and secular. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication.

  30. Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nielsen, K. (1964). Ethics without god. Ohio University Review, 6, 48–62.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nolt, J. (2010). Hope, self-transcendence, and environmental ethics. Inquiry, 53(2), 162–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Connor, D. (1998). God and inscrutable evil: In defense of theism and atheism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Partridge, E. (1981). Why care about the future? In E. Partridge (Ed.), Responsibilities to future generations (pp. 203–220). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pascal, B. (2008). Pensées and other writings (trans. H. Levi; ed. A. Levi). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  36. Perry, J. (1978). A dialogue on personal identity and immortality. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pojman, L. (2007). A critique of ethical relativism. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ethical theory: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 38–51). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Quinn, P. (1978). Divine commands and moral requirements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rauch, J. (2003). Let it be. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/05/let-it-be/302726/. Accessed 22 October 2013.

  40. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ribeiro, B. (2011). The problem of heaven. Ratio, 24(1), 46–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rowe, W. L. (1991). Ruminations about evil. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ruse, M. (2007). Evolution and ethics: The sociobiological approach. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ethical theory: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 618–633). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2009). Morality without god. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 679–687). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Swinburne, R. (1968). Miracles. Philological Quarterly, 18, 320–328.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vail, K. E., Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D. R., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2010). A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wielenberg, E. J. (2005). Virtue and value in a godless universe. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Williams, B. (1973). The Makropulos case: Reflections on the tedium of immortality. In Problems of the self (pp. 82–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2010). Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zuckerman, P. (2010). Society without God: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank audiences at East Tennessee State University, University of Tennessee Chattanooga, and Western Washington University for providing valuable feedback on material that was incorporated into this manuscript. We extend special thanks to E. J. Coffman, Garret Merriam, Robert McKim, Brian Ribeiro, Scott Aikin, Don Hatcher, Jonathan Kvanvig, and Ira DeSpain for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Finally, we thank the many anonymous reviewers whose feedback helped us to clarify and refine our arguments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trevor Hedberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hedberg, T., Huzarevich, J. Appraising Objections to Practical Apatheism. Philosophia 45, 257–276 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9759-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Apatheism
  • Practical apatheism
  • Existence of god
  • Ethics
  • Miracles
  • Meaning of life
  • Afterlife