Some people, like Richard Dawkins, for example, pretend that they want reason simply for reason's sake. Yeah, right, Dicky-boy.
A lot of people do what I think of as argument from psychoanalysis
. Like: Republicans say that because (insert some character flaw). It's incredibly condescending.
So I don't know what to do about the fact that Dawkins (or anyone who puts a LOT of energy into attacking superstition) seems to beg for psychoanalysis.
You see? You can also find an emotional state that is conflicted. I think reason in these cases is the way out. Maybe.
Nietzche hated platonic thought, but he admired Socrates, the character. Why? Because Socrates created a new form of "game." A new sport, a new CONTEST. It was the game of reasoning, and using your skills to defeat your opponent.
But Socrates wasn't about winning through sophistry. The myth is that he went to the Oracle and was told he was the wisest man in Athens. He thought "How could that be? I don't know anything?" He concluded that this must be why he was wisest: because he knew he didn't know anything. Subsequently he went around showing everybody else that all their knowledge tends to fall apart on analysis.