ris3n's Apologetics Codex
The Thank-You Argument
Page Nav

Argument

The Thank-You Argument

Thank-You Argument, thank you argument, who do atheists thank, gratitude for existence argument, is it rational to be grateful to be alive, fitting gratitude argument, existential gratitude and God

Intro

There are ads on our codex that pay for hosting and keep the codex free. If you can, please consider whitelisting ris3n.com or allowing scripts to support the work.

Sponsored

Brands, events, influencers advertise here

Most people, at some point, feel thankful just to be alive. It might come after a close call, at the birth of a child, or on an ordinary evening when the light is right. The feeling is not just pleasure. It feels like thanks.

Now ask whether that feeling is a mistake. Most of us, thinking it over, would say no. Being alive is a real good, we did not earn it, and gratitude seems the right response, the way it is right to be thankful for a gift. People who live gratefully are not fooling themselves; they tend to be healthier and kinder.

But thanks, in the full sense, is always thanks to someone for something. You can be glad it did not rain on your picnic without thanking anyone. You cannot thank the rain. So if gratitude for existence is really fitting, and not just gladness wearing the clothes of thanks, there must be someone who gave existence. The Thank-You Argument says the most natural reading of our gratitude is also the true one: there is a Giver.

See this page's graph and discover linked topics

In full

The Thank-You Argument is a normative argument from the fittingness of existential gratitude. Its datum is not merely that people feel gratitude with no human benefactor, a phenomenological claim developed at Argument from the Addressee of Gratitude, but that such gratitude is, on reflection, fitting: a correct, not a mistaken, response to one's existence. The spine is valid by modus ponens. Gratitude in the paradigm "to-for" form, A grateful to B for C, is fitting only if there is a benefactor who intentionally gave C (Roberts, Manela). Existence, including the cosmic conditions for life, is a contingent and unearned good (physics: a universe with a finite past on the leading cosmological models, and finely tuned constants). If to-for gratitude for existence is fitting, a Giver of existence exists. The argument's weight therefore falls on one contested premise, the fittingness of to-for existential gratitude, which is supported inductively (psychology of gratitude, the reflective stability of the attitude across believers and non-believers), abductively (it outperforms the rival readings, error and mere propositional gladness) and by convergence (philosophy, psychology, language and cosmology). The strongest rival, defended by Sean McAleer and discussed by Michael Lacewing, is that existential gratitude is propositional gratitude, being grateful that, which needs no benefactor. The conclusion is deductive given the premises and confirmatory in practice, since its key premise is supported by evidence rather than proved.

Format note

This page is a braided case: a valid spine with each premise supported three ways, by evidence (the inductive strand), by a comparison of rival explanations (the abductive strand) and by agreement across fields (convergence), then a knot, a ledger and a defeater gate. It braids four fields. Psychology shows that gratitude for existence is common and that living gratefully is healthy rather than deluded. Language shows that thanks has a built-in shape, someone thanks someone for something. Physics shows that existence, ours and the universe's, is contingent and finely balanced, a real and unearned good. Theology names the Giver whom fitting thanks requires. Other arguments built this way are listed at Ris3n Arguments.

The spine

# Premise
P1 The datum. Many people, theists and non-theists alike, experience gratitude for their existence and for the conditions that make it possible, with no human benefactor in view.
P2 Existence is a contingent, unearned good. Our existence and the life-permitting order of the universe did not have to be, and we did nothing to earn them.
P3 Fittingness. Gratitude for existence, in its full "to-for" form, is fitting: a correct response to that good, not an error.
P4 The triadic principle. To-for gratitude is fitting only if there is a benefactor who intentionally gave the good.
P5 The only candidate. The only possible benefactor of one's existence as such, and of the universe's life-permitting order, is a personal Creator.
C Therefore there is a personal Giver of existence.

Validity. From P3 and P4, a benefactor of existence exists (modus ponens). P2 makes existence the kind of thing that can be given, and P5 identifies the only benefactor who could give it. P1 is not needed for validity; it locates the attitude whose fittingness P3 asserts.

Strength of the conclusion. The spine is deductively valid, but P3 is supported by evidence and reflection, not proved, and P4 is defended against a published rival. So in practice the argument is confirmatory: as strong as the case for P3, and the ledger states how strong that is.

P1, The datum

Inductive strand

  1. Gratitude is common and measurable. Robert A. Emmons and Michael E. McCullough, "Counting Blessings Versus Burdens: An Experimental Investigation of Gratitude and Subjective Well-Being in Daily Life" (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, 2003), had participants keep weekly or daily lists of things they were grateful for, and found gains in well-being compared with participants who listed hassles or neutral events. Gratitude is a common, measurable response, and it is not limited to favours from other people.
  2. Atheists report it and want it. Robert C. Roberts, "Cosmic Gratitude" (European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6, 2014), notes that atheists have sometimes wanted an analogue of religious gratitude. Michael Lacewing, "Can non-theists appropriately feel existential gratitude?" (Religious Studies 52, 2016), devotes a full article to the question because the experience is real among non-theists.
  3. A famous atheist expressed it. Richard Dawkins opens Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) with "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones," going on to say that most possible people, encoded in possible DNA, will never be born. The tone is gratitude for the improbable fact of existing.

Abductive strand

Explanation of P1's data Explanatory power Scope Simplicity Ad hoc?
People perceive existence as a gift and respond with thanks Explains the form of the response (thanks, not just pleasure) Believers and non-believers One posit No
Over-extension of social gratitude to non-social goods Explains the origin of the feeling Wide Simple Says nothing about whether it is fitting (P3)
Cultural residue of theism Explains some religious language Weak among people raised secular Simple Partly

Convergence

Experimental psychology (Emmons and McCullough), philosophy of emotion (Roberts, Lacewing) and secular literature (Dawkins) agree that the experience occurs. What is disputed is its correctness and its object, not its existence.

Objections and rebuttals

  1. "People say 'grateful' loosely; they mean glad." Rebuttal. Some do, and that is exactly the rival taken up at P4. The datum is that the response often has the form of thanks, which is why Lacewing and Roberts treat it as a problem for non-theists.

P2, Existence is a contingent, unearned good

Inductive strand

  1. Our own existence was improbable and unearned. Each person results from one of an astronomically large number of possible genetic combinations, Dawkins's own point, and no one contributes anything to their own coming into being.
  2. The universe probably had a beginning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (Physical Review Letters 90, 2003) shows that spacetimes that have on average been expanding cannot be extended indefinitely into the past. It does not by itself prove an absolute beginning, but it removes the most common models of an eternal past. See Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem and Big Bang.
  3. The conditions for life are finely balanced. Many physicists judge that small changes in certain constants and initial conditions would rule out life; the inference from this is disputed, but the sensitivity is widely accepted. See Fine-Tuning Argument.
  4. Contingency is a classical datum. The universe need not have existed; see Contingency Argument and Necessary vs Contingent Being.

Abductive strand

Explanation of P2's data Explanatory power Scope Simplicity Ad hoc?
Existence is a gift from a Creator Explains contingency, beginning and life-permitting order together Wide One posit No
Brute contingency Records the data Wide Simple Gives up explanation
Multiverse selection Explains why we see life-permitting conditions Fine-tuning only Many unobserved universes Partly; see Multiverse

Convergence

Cosmology (the beginning), physics (fine-tuning sensitivity), biology (the contingency of each individual) and metaphysics (contingent being) reach P2 independently. Even a naturalist can grant P2 in full; it says only that existence is a real good we did not earn.

Objections and rebuttals

  1. "Existence is not a good; some lives are terrible." Rebuttal. P2 needs only that existence is good for most people most of the time, as their own reflective judgment says, and the argument concerns those who are in fact grateful. Suffering is real and is treated at Problem of Evil.
  2. "You cannot be benefited by being brought into existence, since there was no one before to benefit." Rebuttal. That puzzle, if it worked, would also make it unfitting for anyone to be glad to exist, which almost no one accepts. Being given a good one could not have asked for is still being given a good.

P3, Fittingness

Inductive strand

  1. Gratitude is psychologically healthy, not deluded. Alex M. Wood, Jeffrey J. Froh and Adam W. A. Geraghty, "Gratitude and well-being: A review and theoretical integration" (Clinical Psychology Review 30, 2010), reviewed evidence that gratitude is strongly associated with well-being. Gratitude interventions show real but modest effects, so this point should not be overstated.
  2. It survives reflection. Unlike many emotions we disown on reflection (envy, irrational fear), gratitude for existence tends to be endorsed by those who examine it, and non-theists such as Dawkins endorse the closely related gladness at existing.
  3. The moral traditions treat it as a virtue. Gratitude is praised across ethical traditions, and ingratitude is condemned. Scripture treats failing to give thanks as a mark of a darkened mind (Romans 1:21).
  4. Its absence is a defect. A person who receives the good of being alive and feels no thanks at all is not more rational; most observers would say something is missing.

Abductive strand

Explanation of P3's data Explanatory power Scope Simplicity Ad hoc?
Existential gratitude is fitting because existence is given Explains its health, its reflective stability and its moral standing Wide One posit No
It is a useful error Explains its health Must say a virtue rests on a mistake Simple Yes: makes a reflectively endorsed virtue a delusion
It is fitting only as propositional gladness Explains its fittingness without a giver Covers the "glad that" part Simple Changes the subject from thanks to gladness; see P4

Convergence

Clinical psychology (Wood and colleagues), virtue ethics, moral phenomenology and scripture agree that gratitude for life is a correct response, not a malfunction. Lacewing, writing as a philosopher open to the non-theist position, takes the question to be how non-theistic gratitude could be appropriate, which already assumes that it seems to be.

Objections and rebuttals

  1. "Healthy does not mean true." Rebuttal. Correct, and the argument does not rest on health alone. Health is one strand; reflective endorsement and moral standing are others. Together they make error the expensive reading.
  2. "Fittingness is just a feeling about a feeling." Rebuttal. We judge emotions fitting or unfitting all the time: fear of a harmless spider is unfitting, grief at a death is fitting. Fittingness is the ordinary standard by which emotions are assessed.

P4, The triadic principle

Inductive strand

  1. The paradigm form of gratitude is triadic. Roberts calls the classic form "to-for" gratitude: someone is grateful to a benefactor for a benefit. Tony Manela's entry "Gratitude" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets out this structure as the focus of most philosophical work.
  2. The language of thanks carries the triad. In English we thank someone for something. In the Greek of the New Testament, the verb for giving thanks takes the one thanked: Paul writes "I thank my God" (Romans 1:8). Thanks is addressed.
  3. Impersonal causes cannot be thanked. You can be glad the storm missed your house; you cannot thank the storm, because it did not mean to spare you. Thanks presupposes good will in the giver.

Abductive strand

Reading of existential gratitude Explanatory power Scope Simplicity Ad hoc?
To-for gratitude with a real Giver Fits the form, the language and the felt address of the response Full One posit No
Propositional gratitude, grateful that, with no giver (McAleer) Captures gladness and humility Partial: drops the address Simple No, but it is a different attitude
Gratitude to impersonal nature or luck Keeps the grammar Wide Simple Thanks a thing that cannot give

Convergence

Philosophy of gratitude (Roberts, Manela), ordinary language and biblical usage reach the same point: in its full form, thanks needs a giver who meant the good. McAleer agrees that targeted gratitude has this form; he argues that a second, untargeted form also exists.

Objections and rebuttals

  1. "Propositional gratitude is real gratitude, and it needs no giver." Rebuttal. Grant it. Then there are two attitudes, being glad that, and being grateful to. The argument is about the second. Its premise is that the to-for form of gratitude for existence is fitting, and that is the subject of the defeater gate.

P5, The only candidate

Inductive strand

  1. No human gave you existence as such. Parents are real benefactors, but they did not choose you in particular, did not design the conditions of life, and did not bring the universe into being.
  2. The universe cannot give itself. A benefactor must mean the good. Physical processes, however wonderful, do not intend.
  3. Christian theism names the Giver. "He himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things" (Acts 17:25, ASV); "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17, ASV).

Abductive strand

The rivals to P5 are a non-personal source (which cannot be thanked) or a finite designer. A finite designer of the universe's conditions would still not be the ground of existence as such; the argument's target is the Giver of being, which only a necessary, personal Creator can be. See Creatio ex Nihilo.

Convergence

Classical natural theology (the Giver of being) and the philosophy of gratitude (a giver must intend) meet at P5.

Objections and rebuttals

  1. "Why not thank evolution?" Rebuttal. Evolution is a process, not an agent; it did not mean to give you anything. To thank it is either a figure of speech or a mistake.

The knot

The strands are independent in method: experiments and reviews in psychology (Emmons and McCullough; Wood, Froh and Geraghty), conceptual analysis in philosophy (Roberts, Manela, McAleer, Lacewing), grammar and usage, and cosmology (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, fine-tuning). Two overlaps are counted once. First, the psychological data support both P1 (the experience occurs) and P3 (it is healthy), so the ledger counts the well-being evidence once. Second, the physics strand supports only P2, which a naturalist can grant; it adds to the argument's scope, not to the contested premise. The weight of the argument rests on P3 and P4 together.

The ledger

Prior-agnostic: the ledger asks how expected each datum is under each hypothesis. The ratings are judgments argued above, not measurements.

Datum How expected on theism How expected on naturalism Favours Why Independent?
People feel thanks for existing, with no human giver High Moderate Theism, modestly Naturalism can explain the feeling as over-extended social gratitude Yes
Existence is contingent, with a probable beginning and fine-tuned conditions High Moderate to low Theism, modestly Shared with cosmological and fine-tuning arguments; count once across the codex Partly
Existential gratitude is reflectively endorsed and healthy High Moderate Theism, modestly On naturalism a healthy virtue may rest on an error Partly overlaps the first row
The endorsed response has the to-for form of thanks High Low Theism, clearly, if P3 holds Naturalism must reclassify it as gladness or call it a mistake The contested core

Net. The first three rows modestly favour theism and largely overlap with other arguments. The decisive row is the fourth: if the to-for form of gratitude for existence is fitting, the argument is close to conclusive, because no naturalistic benefactor exists. If only propositional gladness is fitting, the argument falls back to a modest confirmation. The honest verdict is that the argument is as strong as one's confidence that thanks, not just gladness, is the right response to being alive.

The defeater gate

The propositional-gratitude reply. The strongest objection holds that existential gratitude is fitting, but not in the to-for form. Sean McAleer, "Propositional Gratitude" (American Philosophical Quarterly 49, 2012), argues that being grateful that something is so is a genuine and even more basic form of gratitude than being grateful to someone, and that it needs no benefactor. Michael Lacewing (Religious Studies, 2016) examines the conditions under which non-directed gratitude for existence could be appropriate for non-theists. On this view, the atheist on a beautiful evening is fittingly grateful that she is alive, and the argument's P4 does not apply.

The reply has three parts.

  1. Grant the attitude, then compare. Propositional gratitude exists. The question is which attitude fits the case. When a friend pays your debt, being merely glad that the debt is paid is an unfitting response: it fails to recognize the friend. If existence is in fact given, the same holds. So whether glad-that is enough depends on whether there is a giver, and that cannot be settled by redescribing the feeling.
  2. The experience itself reaches for address. People do not only feel glad that they exist; they often feel moved to say thank you, and the language they reach for is the language of thanks. Roberts argues that the to-for model is the classic and central form. Reducing the experience to glad-that changes the subject from the experience people report.
  3. The reply costs humility its object. McAleer ties propositional gratitude to humility, the recognition that one did not earn one's goods. But humility before an unearned good naturally asks from whom it came. The non-theist can stop the question; the question does not stop itself.

What the gate concedes: a consistent non-theist can hold that only glad-that gratitude is fitting, and the argument cannot compel the to-for reading. Its claim is that the to-for reading is the natural, reflectively stable and linguistically embedded one, so that a world in which it is correct, a world with a Giver, is the better fit for the data.

Concessions

  • Grant: gratitude can be felt for things no one gave, like good weather. Now collect: we then call it gladness, and we notice that thanks would be out of place. Ask which word fits being alive.
  • Grant: gratitude evolved in social life. Now collect: an evolved origin does not settle whether it fits its object; evolved grief still fits a real loss.
  • Grant: parents are real benefactors. Now collect: they did not give the universe, the laws, or you in particular; thanks for those has to go further.
  • Grant: Dawkins feels lucky. Now collect: lucky is gladness; the question is whether thanks is wrong, and almost no one, Dawkins included, lives as though it is.

Cheatsheet

The 30-second version (read aloud). Almost everyone has felt grateful just to be alive. Is that feeling a mistake? Most of us say no: life is a real good we did not earn, and gratitude is the right response. But real thanks is always thanks to someone. You can be glad it did not rain, but you cannot thank the rain. So if thanks for being alive is right, and not just gladness in disguise, then someone gave you life. That is the God the Bible describes, who "giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."

Fast facts:

  1. Emmons and McCullough (JPSP, 2003): counting blessings raised well-being compared with counting hassles.
  2. Wood, Froh and Geraghty (Clinical Psychology Review, 2010): gratitude is strongly associated with well-being.
  3. Roberts ("Cosmic Gratitude," 2014): the classic form of gratitude is to-for, and atheists have wanted an analogue.
  4. McAleer (2012): the rival, propositional gratitude that needs no benefactor.
  5. Dawkins (1998): "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones."

The closing line. Gladness needs only a good. Thanks needs a Giver.

Cross-examination

Round 1, Is the feeling real?

  • Q: Have you ever felt grateful to be alive, with no person to thank?
  • If they say yes: Is that feeling a mistake you should correct?
  • If they say no: ask whether they would call an ungrateful person more rational.

Round 2, Is it fitting?

  • Q: Is being alive a good you earned?
  • If they say no: then gratitude is the natural response to an unearned good. Is it the right one?

Round 3, Glad or grateful?

  • Q: When a friend pays your debt, is it enough to be glad the debt is gone?
  • If they say no, you should thank the friend: then if life is given, glad-that is not enough either. The question is whether it is given.
  • If they say gladness is enough: most people will find that answer cold, and it is.

Dodge table

Dodge What it concedes Reply
"I am grateful to the universe." Thanks wants an address "Can the universe mean you good? If not, the thanks has no one to land on."
"It is just a figure of speech." The words are thanks "Then why does the figure of speech feel more true than the literal word glad?"
"Gratitude evolved." The feeling has a history "So did grief. Its history does not make it wrong."
"I thank my parents." Thanks needs a giver "Good. Who gave them, and the world they met in?"

Live-cite kit

Scripture (ASV):

  • Acts 17:25: neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:25, ASV)
  • James 1:17: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning. (James 1:17, ASV)
  • 1 Corinthians 4:7: and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? (1 Corinthians 4:7, ASV)
  • Acts 14:17: And yet he left not himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness. (Acts 14:17, ASV)
  • Romans 1:21: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks (Romans 1:21, ASV)
  • Psalm 100:4: Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, And into his courts with praise: Give thanks unto him, and bless his name. (Psalm 100:4, ASV)

Scholarly:

  • Robert C. Roberts, "Cosmic Gratitude," European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (2014).
  • Michael Lacewing, "Can non-theists appropriately feel existential gratitude?" Religious Studies 52 (2016).
  • Sean McAleer, "Propositional Gratitude," American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2012).
  • Emmons and McCullough, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (2003).

Aphorism: "You can be glad for the weather. You can only thank a Giver."

Connection to Scripture

  • Acts 17:25, God gives "life, and breath, and all things": the Giver of existence named.
  • Acts 14:17, God's goodness in ordinary provision is His witness even to those who do not know Him.
  • James 1:17, every good gift comes from the Father of lights.
  • 1 Corinthians 4:7, nothing we have is unreceived.
  • Romans 1:21, the failure to give thanks is the first step of a darkened mind.
  • Romans 1:8, "I thank my God": thanks addressed.
  • Psalm 100:4, worship begins in thanksgiving.

Scholarship

Published academic works this page draws on, each matched to a publisher, index or library catalog record.

See also

Common questions this page answers

Q: Who do atheists thank when they feel grateful to be alive?

Many atheists do feel grateful for existence, and philosophers such as Michael Lacewing and Robert Roberts have written about the puzzle this creates. Without a giver, the feeling has to be either a mistake or a kind of gladness. The Thank-You Argument says the most natural reading, thanks to someone, is also the true one.

Q: Is it rational to be grateful for being alive?

Most people who think about it say yes. Life is a real good that no one earned, and gratitude is the fitting response to an unearned good. Psychologists also find that grateful people tend to flourish, which suggests the attitude is healthy rather than deluded.

Q: Can you be grateful without someone to thank?

You can be glad that something happened without thanking anyone, and some philosophers call that propositional gratitude. But thanks in the full sense is always to someone for something. You can be glad the storm missed you; you cannot thank the storm.

Q: How is this different from the argument from gratitude?

The Argument from the Addressee of Gratitude argues from how gratitude feels, that it is directed at someone. This argument asks whether that gratitude is correct, and argues that if thanks for existence is fitting, there must be a Giver of existence.

Q: Does the Bible connect gratitude with knowing God?

Yes. Paul says the first step away from God was that people, "knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks" (Romans 1:21, ASV). James says every good gift comes from the Father of lights, and Paul told the Athenians that God gives to all life and breath and all things.

Q: Does this argument prove that God exists?

The logic is valid, but its key premise, that thanks rather than mere gladness is the right response to being alive, is supported by reflection and evidence rather than proved. So it is best seen as strong evidence that adds to the wider case for God.