I was once speaking with an Orthodox Rabbi who told me about a man he knew who refused to be religious even though he believed in the God of Orthodox Judaism. That seems odd, I thought, and asked the Rabbi for more information. He then proceeded to explain that, whenever the man acted as a religious Jew, he looked in the mirror and all he could think about was his father, and this man hated his father.

So began my first experience with the notion of such cognitive dissonance and the idea that there was no atheist/agnostic who rationally believed in atheism/agnosticism. Little did I know this argument would be the backbone for anti-atheist rhetoric which I would encounter from the religious.

The essential fallacy behind this reasoning is that in spite of logical rational arguments the person is so overcome by the negative emotions which they associate with religion that they themselves cannot be religious even though they consciously believe it’s rational to do so. This underlines the notion that is there was no rational person who does not believe in the existence of a God and any person who claims to be rational is really covering up some sort of hidden irrational hatred or emotional issue, an issue that can easily be discredited since the experience is personal.

To spell it out in clearer terms, Although the man in the Rabbi's story knows that it is rational for him to be an Orthodox Jew (for whatever reason) he still refuses to act on this logical reasoning because he associates Orthodox Judaism with his father (which is a negative emotional association) and therefore he allows this to overtake his rational thinking. He is the arbiter of cognitive dissonance and fallacious reasoning, and according to the religious people I encountered, he was the principle example for the classic atheist.

This classic atheist, is a person who doesn’t really believe the things he is saying are true, he’s just mad or upset about something and he cannot cope with being religious. Such issues like a bad father figure, an abuse in the name of religion, and anything of the like. All the arguments of the classic atheist are arguments which are based off of emotional reasoning and not sound logic. Furthermore, the person’s ability to reason rationally when it comes to religion, is marred by his negative experiences and therefore cannot stand as an inquisitor into religion.

However, what this critique of atheism doesn’t account for is a person like myself, a person whose reasoning operates the other way around. A person who acts rationally, but knows of his own emotional irrationality, a person who would love to be religious, but due to the lack of evidence, simply cannot act upon it since it goes against rational thinking. In just the opposite fashion, every time I look in the mirror and see that I am not religious, I think of my father who is religious and I want to be religious.

My father is the pinnacle of decency. He does not let his religion harbor or hinder his decency. He’s a wonderful person who I am incredibly grateful for, and he’s warm loving and accepting and he is a dyed in the wool Orthodox Jew. Every time I look in the mirror and I see my father staring back at me I want to be religious, I want to act like him, and I want to treat others as he treats others.

Unfortunately, unlike the man in the Rabbi’s story, the reasoning which I live my life by is not fallacious. I cannot willingly engage in cognitive dissonance, and to me the evidence is the evidence no matter who is on the other side. To me, to any rational human, the truth doesn’t change because of our feelings towards it.

The problem with critiquing atheism/agnosticism in such a manner is that the knife cuts both ways. Although I want to engage in reasoning with my emotions and my feelings. Although my experience with religion has been mostly positive, the truth does not change. The man in the Rabbi's story hated his father and could not be religious, where I on the other hand love my father and would love to be religious. This is why the critique doesn’t really hold up (for the exact reason the religious use it); our opinions of our fathers don’t actually matter to the truth. We don't get a vote on what the truth is, it's not an election. The truth isn't a democracy. The truth is a dictatorship and for rational humans it's word is, and always will be, Law.