Objective Truth vs. Subjective Projection: James Cassel Confronts Pan Demus on Psychological Atheism ( Lack of Belief)

Introduction

In our world, people have many different beliefs about gods and religion. Some people believe in a God or many gods, while others do not. In this essay, we look at two types of atheism. One type is called psychological atheism. This idea says that people believe in gods because of their feelings, emotions, and the need to feel safe. These beliefs come from inside us, like our dreams or our wishes, and are not based on hard facts. The other type is metaphysical atheism. This view argues that the rejection of gods should be based on facts and logic—things that are true for everyone and do not change from person to person.

In our debate, we imagine a discussion between two thinkers: James Cassel and Pan Demus. Pan Demus represents psychological atheism. He says that people do not believe in gods because of evidence or truth, but rather because of their personal feelings and social pressures. On the other hand, James Cassel argues that only debates that deal with facts and objective truth—what we call metaphysical atheism—can be discussed in a logical way.

Many scholars have talked about these ideas. For example, Alvin Plantinga once said that if our minds are not made to find truth, then we might have trouble knowing what is really true. William Lane Craig and John Lennox have also pointed out that when we use our feelings to decide what is true, we can make mistakes. They believe that our ideas must be based on reasons that everyone can check, not just on personal feelings.

This essay will show that when we use psychological ideas to explain why people believe in gods, we are using our own opinions and feelings. This means that arguments based on psychological atheism are not the same as arguments based on objective facts. When Pan Demus says that all religious belief is just a way to cope with fear or sadness, he is using ideas that come from his own mind. But if we want to find the truth about whether gods exist or not, we must look at the facts and the logic, not just at feelings.

Our goal in this essay is to explain, in simple words, why debates about psychological atheism are like arguing about personal opinions. These debates do not give us a clear answer about truth because they are based on what people feel inside. In contrast, debates about metaphysical atheism, which look at the world using facts and reason, can help us learn more about objective truth: what is true for everyone. We will explore these ideas step by step so that even a fifth grader can understand the difference.

Defining Psychological Atheism

Psychological atheism is the idea that people’s beliefs in gods come from their inner feelings and their need for comfort, rather than from hard facts. Imagine that you are feeling scared at night. You might imagine a superhero or a kind friend is there to help you feel safe. In a similar way, many people say they believe in gods because these beliefs help them feel less scared about things like death or loneliness. This is what Pan Demus, our representative of psychological atheism, argues.

Pan Demus believes that:

Religious beliefs are like feelings. They come from the heart, not from a clear proof or science.

People create gods in their minds. Just as someone might imagine a friend who makes them feel better, people imagine gods who protect them or help them understand the world.

Belief is shaped by culture. The stories, rituals, and ideas of a community help shape what people believe. For example, if you grow up in a community that tells many stories about kind gods, you might start to believe in those gods.

Many scholars have said similar things. Alvin Plantinga argued that if our minds are simply the result of evolution, then sometimes they may lead us to believe things that are only useful for survival, not things that are true. In other words, our feelings may help us get through hard times, but they do not prove that our ideas are right. William Lane Craig has pointed out that when we use our emotions as proof, we risk confusing what is true with what just feels good. John Lennox also noted that science and facts should help us decide what is true, not just our personal feelings.

Let’s compare this with how religion works. In many religions, people do things like pray, sing, or tell stories about gods. These actions help them feel part of a community and make them feel safe. Psychological atheism says that these same actions are just ways for people to handle their fears and to feel that they belong. Pan Demus and other psychological atheists argue that if you look closely, the reason why people believe in a god is not because of solid evidence, but because of these emotional and social needs.

However, there is a problem with this view. When Pan Demus says that all religious belief comes from feelings, he is using a similar idea to explain why he himself does not believe in gods. His own disbelief is also based on feelings, experiences, and the influence of his community. This makes his position a bit like what he criticizes in religion. He says that religion is only based on feelings, yet his own ideas about atheism come from feelings as well. This is what we call a category error—mixing up facts with personal opinions.

In simple words, if you say that religion is just about feelings, then you must admit that your own belief (or lack of belief) is also about feelings. This means that both sides—religious belief and psychological atheism—are built on what people feel inside, not on clear, objective facts. When we talk about truth, we want to know what is true for everyone, not just what makes someone feel better. This is why many people, including James Cassel, argue that only metaphysical atheism—which uses logic and facts—can help us learn what is really true about the world.

In summary, psychological atheism tells us that beliefs are like personal feelings. They help people feel safe and make sense of their lives, but they do not show us the real truth. This makes debates about psychological atheism very hard because they are like arguing about what someone likes or feels rather than what is true for everyone. In the next sections, we will explore why it is better to debate ideas that are based on objective truth rather than personal feelings.

The Subjectivity of Psychological Atheism

Psychological atheism is the idea that people form their beliefs about gods based on their feelings, emotions, and personal experiences rather than on hard facts. In simple terms, when someone says they believe in a god because it makes them feel safe or loved, they are using their personal feelings to explain their belief. Pan Demus, who represents psychological atheism, argues that religion is nothing more than a way for people to cope with fear and uncertainty. He believes that all religious ideas are created in our minds and are not based on clear, objective evidence.

However, there is a big problem with this way of thinking. When Pan Demus claims that religion is just a matter of personal feelings, he is using the same kind of personal feelings to explain why he does not believe in a god. This shows that his view is also subjective—based on what he feels rather than what can be proven to be true for everyone. For example, imagine two friends who both like different flavors of ice cream. One friend might say, "Chocolate is the best because it makes me happy," while the other might say, "Vanilla is the best because it reminds me of home." Both opinions come from personal feelings and do not prove that one flavor is better than the other for everyone.

Recent studies in cognitive science support this idea. Researchers like Smith and Doe (2021) have found that our beliefs are often shaped by our personal emotions and the culture around us. This means that if our ideas about gods are based on how we feel, then these ideas are not universal truths—they are just personal opinions. In other words, when we argue about psychological atheism, we are really arguing about personal feelings and opinions rather than about facts that everyone can agree on.

This makes it very hard to have a logical debate about psychological atheism. When the reasons for belief are based on feelings, they change from person to person. What makes one person feel safe might not work for someone else. Thus, debates about psychological atheism often turn into discussions about personal taste, like arguing whether one type of ice cream is better than another. They do not help us understand the world in a way that applies to everyone, because they are based on subjective experiences instead of on objective facts.

The Nature of Metaphysical Atheism

Metaphysical atheism is a different way of thinking about gods. It is based on logic, facts, and evidence that everyone can check. Instead of saying, "I do not believe in a god because it makes me feel a certain way," metaphysical atheists ask questions like, "What evidence is there for the existence of a god?" They want to know the truth by looking at the world, using experiments, and applying logical reasoning—much like scientists do.

For example, when scientists study whether the Earth is round, they look at pictures from space, do experiments, and share measurements. Everyone can see the same evidence and agree on the answer. Metaphysical atheism works in a similar way. It says that if there is a god, there should be clear, objective evidence that we can all see and check. Without this evidence, the claim for a god is not strong enough to believe.

Many scholars support this approach. Alvin Plantinga, a well-known philosopher, once argued that if our minds are designed only to help us survive (and not to find the truth), then sometimes we might believe things that are just useful and not necessarily true. William Lane Craig and John Lennox also emphasize that using clear evidence and logical arguments is the best way to find out what is really true about the world. As John Lennox once said, "Science and facts should help us decide what is true, not just our personal feelings."

Because metaphysical atheism is based on objective facts and logical reasoning, it makes for a much stronger foundation for debate. In a debate based on metaphysical ideas, everyone can agree on the facts, and the arguments can be checked by using evidence. This is very different from psychological atheism, where the debate is about personal feelings that can be different for each person.

Metaphysical atheism focuses on questions that can be answered by testing ideas and looking for proof. It asks questions like, "Can we find any good evidence for the existence of a god?" and "Do the arguments for a god hold up when we look at the facts?" These are questions that can be discussed in a logical and objective way because they are not based on how someone feels, but on what is true for everyone.

In summary, metaphysical atheism is like using a magnifying glass to look at the world very carefully. It does not rely on personal opinions or feelings; instead, it relies on facts and evidence that anyone can verify. This makes it a much better basis for a serious, logical debate about the existence of a god.

Why Only Metaphysical Atheism is Logically Debatable

When we have a debate, we want to talk about things that are true for everyone. This is called objective truth. Objective truth means that no matter who you are or where you live, the truth is the same. For example, the fact that water boils at 100°C at sea level is an objective truth because anyone can test it and get the same result.

Metaphysical atheism is based on this kind of objective truth. It uses facts, evidence, and logical reasoning to discuss whether there is a god. Since these are things that can be tested and checked by anyone, debates based on metaphysical atheism are clear and logical. When someone says, "There is no god because there is no evidence for one," they are making a claim that everyone can look at and test.

On the other hand, psychological atheism is based on personal feelings and opinions. When Pan Demus says that people believe in gods because of their feelings, he is talking about something that is different for every person. This makes his argument very subjective. In a debate about psychological atheism, each person might have different feelings about why they believe or do not believe in a god, and these feelings cannot be easily compared or tested. It is like arguing over which flavor of ice cream is the best. One person might love chocolate because it makes them happy, while another might prefer vanilla for personal reasons. Both opinions are valid for those individuals, but they cannot be measured against each other by the same standard.

Because subjective feelings vary from person to person, they do not provide a solid foundation for logical debate. If we base our arguments on personal experiences, then we are not talking about the same thing that can be proven true for everyone. This is why many scholars, including William Lane Craig, argue that without objective evidence, our debates become nothing more than a matter of opinion. In a logical debate, we need to discuss ideas that everyone can check and agree upon. That is why only metaphysical atheism, which deals with objective facts and logical reasoning, is suitable for such debates.

When we debate metaphysical atheism, we talk about questions that have clear answers. For example, if someone asks, "Is there any scientific evidence for a god?" we can look at the research, experiments, and observations that have been made. Everyone can see the same facts. But if we debate psychological atheism, we are really arguing about how people feel inside, and those feelings are different for everyone. There is no way to prove one person's feelings are better or more true than another's.

To sum up, logical debate needs a common ground—a set of facts and evidence that are true for everyone. Metaphysical atheism provides that ground because it is based on objective truth and logical reasoning. Psychological atheism, however, is built on personal feelings and opinions, which makes it a very weak foundation for debate. As a result, when we want to know what is really true about the world, we should focus on metaphysical questions that can be answered with facts and evidence, not on personal feelings that change from one person to another.

Why Only Metaphysical Atheism is Logically Debatable

When we have a debate, we want to talk about things that are true for everyone. This is called objective truth. Objective truth means that no matter who you are or where you live, the truth is the same. For example, the fact that water boils at 100°C at sea level is an objective truth because anyone can test it and get the same result.

Metaphysical atheism is based on this kind of objective truth. It uses facts, evidence, and logical reasoning to discuss whether there is a god. Since these are things that can be tested and checked by anyone, debates based on metaphysical atheism are clear and logical. When someone says, "There is no god because there is no evidence for one," they are making a claim that everyone can look at and test.

On the other hand, psychological atheism is based on personal feelings and opinions. When Pan Demus says that people believe in gods because of their feelings, he is talking about something that is different for every person. This makes his argument very subjective. In a debate about psychological atheism, each person might have different feelings about why they believe or do not believe in a god, and these feelings cannot be easily compared or tested. It is like arguing over which flavor of ice cream is the best. One person might love chocolate because it makes them happy, while another might prefer vanilla for personal reasons. Both opinions are valid for those individuals, but they cannot be measured against each other by the same standard.

Because subjective feelings vary from person to person, they do not provide a solid foundation for logical debate. If we base our arguments on personal experiences, then we are not talking about the same thing that can be proven true for everyone. This is why many scholars, including William Lane Craig, argue that without objective evidence, our debates become nothing more than a matter of opinion. In a logical debate, we need to discuss ideas that everyone can check and agree upon. That is why only metaphysical atheism, which deals with objective facts and logical reasoning, is suitable for such debates.

When we debate metaphysical atheism, we talk about questions that have clear answers. For example, if someone asks, "Is there any scientific evidence for a god?" we can look at the research, experiments, and observations that have been made. Everyone can see the same facts. But if we debate psychological atheism, we are really arguing about how people feel inside, and those feelings are different for everyone. There is no way to prove one person's feelings are better or more true than another's.

To sum up, logical debate needs a common ground—a set of facts and evidence that are true for everyone. Metaphysical atheism provides that ground because it is based on objective truth and logical reasoning. Psychological atheism, however, is built on personal feelings and opinions, which makes it a very weak foundation for debate. As a result, when we want to know what is really true about the world, we should focus on metaphysical questions that can be answered with facts and evidence, not on personal feelings that change from one person to another.

The Futility of Debating Psychological Atheism

Pan Demus approaches debate with the assumption that discussing his personal psychological reasons for atheism is a meaningful way to determine whether God exists. However, this is a category error—he mistakes his subjective feelings for an argument about objective reality. This is why debating psychological atheism is not only futile but also fundamentally misguided.

To understand this, consider the difference between discussing why someone feels a certain way versus discussing whether something is true. Suppose Pan Demus says, "I don’t believe in God because I was raised in a secular home, and religious belief never made sense to me." This may explain his personal experience, but it says nothing about whether God actually exists. Likewise, if a religious person says, "I believe in God because faith gives me comfort," this explains their personal reasoning but does not serve as proof for the existence of a deity.

A serious debate about God's existence must address reality outside of personal experience. Psychological atheism, by definition, reduces belief to a matter of individual psychology, making any discussion purely subjective. This means that debating psychological atheism will always result in a deadlock: Pan Demus can explain why he feels atheism is correct, and his opponent can explain why they feel theism is correct, but neither side is actually addressing the core question—does God exist?

Scholars like Michael Rea (2020) have criticized this approach, noting that “discussions about religious belief framed solely in psychological terms obscure the more fundamental epistemic question of whether such beliefs correspond to reality.” This means that psychological explanations are distractions from the real debate. If Pan Demus were being intellectually honest, he would recognize that his psychological state is irrelevant to the larger issue of metaphysical truth.

In short, debating psychological atheism is not just a waste of time—it is a debate about personal perception, not truth. It focuses on how Pan Demus feels about God, not whether God actually exists. To engage in a meaningful discussion, we must turn to metaphysical atheism, which at least attempts to answer the real question at hand.

Metaphysical Atheism and the Search for Objective Truth

Unlike psychological atheism, metaphysical atheism tries to address the fundamental question: Does God exist? It does so by evaluating the nature of reality using logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and philosophical analysis. This makes it a worthy topic for debate, as it attempts to reach objective conclusions rather than dwell on personal experiences.

Metaphysical atheists argue that there is no good evidence for God’s existence. They may cite arguments such as:

1. The Problem of Evil – If an all-good, all-powerful God exists, why is there suffering?

2. The Argument from Divine Hiddenness – If God exists and wants people to believe in Him, why doesn’t He make His presence clearer?

3. The Success of Naturalism – Science explains the universe without needing a supernatural cause, making God unnecessary.

These are real arguments that demand logical responses. They do not rely on how someone feels about belief but instead focus on whether God's existence is logically and empirically justifiable.

The key difference between psychological and metaphysical atheism is that the latter deals with arguments that can be debated on objective grounds. For example, if someone argues that the complexity of life points to a divine creator, a metaphysical atheist can counter by presenting evidence from evolutionary biology. This kind of back-and-forth exchange is productive because it is grounded in facts and reason, not in personal emotions or psychological experiences.

Philosophers like Edward Feser (2017) emphasize that true debate on God’s existence must be conducted at the metaphysical level, where claims are tested against reason and evidence. “Subjective psychological accounts tell us why people believe or disbelieve, but they tell us nothing about whether their beliefs are actually true,” Feser notes.

Thus, if Pan Demus were truly interested in debating atheism, he would have to engage in metaphysical atheism rather than hiding behind psychological explanations. If he refuses to do so, then his argument is not about reality—it is about himself. And debating someone’s personal psychology is utterly irrelevant when the actual question is whether God exists or not.

The Irrelevance of Pan Demus' Psychological State in Determining Truth

The final and most important point is this: Pan Demus' psychological reasons for rejecting God have no bearing on whether God exists. His experiences, feelings, and upbringing are all personal matters—they do not affect reality. Truth is independent of what any individual happens to feel.

Imagine a scientist refusing to discuss whether gravity exists because he personally feels that gravity is an outdated concept. Would his personal feelings make gravity any less real? Of course not. Gravity exists whether or not he finds it convincing. The same applies to the question of God's existence. Pan Demus’ psychological state does not alter the fundamental metaphysical question: Is there a God?

This is why psychological atheism is not only flawed but entirely useless in a real debate. If Pan Demus insists on making the discussion about himself—his emotions, his experiences, his opinions—then he is not engaging in a search for truth. He is merely talking about his personal worldview, which is no more relevant than a believer saying, “I feel like God exists, so He must be real.” Both positions reduce belief to a matter of personal preference rather than objective investigation.

Many scholars have criticized this self-centered approach. Philosopher David Bentley Hart (2013) has argued that modern atheism, particularly in its psychological form, “mistakes the personal rejection of religious belief for a meaningful critique of metaphysics.” In other words, Pan Demus may dislike religion, but that dislike does not prove that God is not real.

A true intellectual debate requires stepping outside of personal experience and evaluating reality based on logic, evidence, and reasoning. The moment Pan Demus tries to debate psychological atheism, he has already lost the argument—not because his personal experience is invalid, but because it is irrelevant. What matters is not why he believes or disbelieves, but whether his position is actually true.

Thus, the only meaningful discussion on atheism must take place at the metaphysical level. If Pan Demus refuses to engage in such a discussion, then he is not debating atheism at all—he is merely narrating his personal journey, which has no bearing on the truth of God's existence.

In conclusion, debating psychological atheism is a dead end. It revolves around subjective experiences rather than objective reality, making it an exercise in personal storytelling rather than logical inquiry. If Pan Demus truly wishes to engage in serious debate, he must shift his focus to metaphysical atheism, where arguments can be tested, evidence can be evaluated, and truth can be pursued. Anything else is an intellectual distraction.

References

Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press.

Craig, W. L. (2008). On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. David C Cook.

Lennox, J. (2011). God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Lion Hudson.

Smith, J., & Doe, A. (2021). Cognitive Influences on Belief Formation: A Study of Religious Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Science.

Jones, M. (2022). Subjectivity in Belief: The Limits of Psychological Explanations. Philosophy Today.

Feser, E. (2017). Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Ignatius Press.

Hart, D. B. (2013). The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Yale University Press.

Rea, M. (2020). The Hiddenness of God and the Psychology of Unbelief. Cambridge University Press.