To accomplish this I will have to try to use small words and simple explanations, NOT because I am attempting to offend anyone, but instead to break things down to a basic level which will hopefully clarify what I am attempting to convey. I often listen to other atheists talk about these words, and it simply baffles me how they attempt to educate someone by using words which sometimes requires a dictionary. My belief is if someone has a difficult time understanding something, it's because they don't have a simple baseline to go from. So if you are one of those wordsmiths, or scholars who loves flowery words you are absolutely going to be frustrated with me today!
Let's start with every theists favourite word; Faith!
Well, what is faith? If you speak to a theist you'll often be told that it is a unshakable belief in the supernatural which comes from within. It is spoken of with reverence as if it is a gift which they choose to accept. Faith is comforting, it's personal, it's a connection to their god. Theists live on the word faith to justify their belief.
Now when you look up the definition of faith, you will actually find 2 different meanings.
One is the complete trust in someone or something. Not really a bad thing.
The second one is to believe in a supernatural without evidence, or the belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Two definitions, they look similar, but they are vastly different.
Faith is one of those contextual words. The first definition is dealing with the real, while the second one specifically deals with the supernatural.
The first definition deals with trust. Trust is earned. Trust isn't just thrust upon someone without any evidence to support that total belief. I get asked sometimes by theists "Do you have faith that when you sit in the chair it will not break?". Simple question, and I give a simple answer. It's not faith in the context of belief without evidence, it is belief with evidence because if I've used the chair before and it were sturdy, and didn't give any signs of failing, then I have belief with a past experience which is my evidence. If the chair were a new chair, say in my friends home, I have trust in my friend that they would not be having shoddy furniture in their home for guests to hurt themselves on. Initially I have trust in my friend, and not in the chair. I could even go as far as saying I have evidence based on observation that the chair is sturdy. I know what a chair is supposed to look like, I've sat in many as a matter of fact. This one looks similar to ones I've experienced in the past.
Is it at all possible my trust could be broken if the chair were to fail? Of course! I would lose trust in that chair, but I wouldn't lose trust in chairs forever. That is of course a chance, although a very low chance. Saying I have faith in the second definition is not applicable here.
A correct way to say faith in a non-religious context would be your wishful thinking on a situation. For example, when my boy Peyton Manning was having his worst season statistically in his career in his final season he was benched for several games up until the last game of the season. He was brought in after his replacement was having a very bad game in order to try something to pull off the win. Winning meant home field advantage for my beloved Broncos throughout the playoffs. The coach gambled and brought in a player with 18 years of experience, and many many instances of being able to pull this game out to win. When I say I had faith in Peyton, I'm appealing to his performances in the past which gives me evidence he could do it again. I was not in any way appealing to any form of supernatural forces to appeal to this game. Now of course Peyton pulled it off, and of course he even held it together long enough to see my team with the Superbowl. I have Faith in Peyton Manning!
When it comes to the second definition of faith, this specifically deals with belief without evidence. The last part is very important. Without evidence. In what instance is the submission of ones own senses to believe in that which they cannot verify ever a good thing? Just think about it, if someone believed without evidence in nearly every other part of their lives, they'd be looked at as crazy. People still believe Tupac is alive, they have faith. Do we speak of them regarding the topic in a positive view, or do we say they are crazy? There are people who believe Elvis is somewhere in memphis living out his life peacefully. Good spiritual folk, or bat shit crazy? Imagine if the justice system went off of belief without evidence and not......evidence, how many innocent people would be in prison or death row today? OK, maybe we would've gotten OJ for his wife and thats a positive, how many other lives would be destroyed because of belief without evidence?
Take it slightly more personal. Imagine if your insurance company operated without evidence. They could decide if your claims were valid without ever looking at the evidence. You said your car was damaged because someone hit you, you want your car covered for repairs, but they say they believe you weren't driving properly so it's your fault. How frustrated would you be if they wouldn't look at the police reports, the pictures, nor the statements from the other insurance company? You'd be furious. That's what it's like when you tell an atheist you have faith. You have blatantly claimed you will ignore your own senses, and submit to this belief which you can't possibly ever prove.
Now you've probably heard of the burden of proof. This is where the person making the claim is the one who needs to hand out the evidence. Atheists use this all the time by stating "Where's the evidence?". It is correct to ask this question because there is a claim being made which contradicts the senses. However, this doesn't stop theists from attempting to shift the burden of proof back to an atheist by saying "Where's your proof god doesn't exists?". That's not how the system works unfortunately. The definition needs to be expanded on when it's being quoted. I would argue that the definition isn't just "The person who makes the claim should provide the evidence.". Instead I would say "The person who makes the claim against the default position should provide the evidence! Those 4 little words "against the default position" makes a world of difference.
As an example; a man is on trial for murder, the jury has to listen to evidence, and the jury needs to make a decision. They don't decide between guilty and innocent; they decide between guilty and not guilty. Why is that? The default position for the man on trial by the law is innocent until proven guilty. Every person has that right afforded to them. He is at default innocent before the end of the trial. It is now the prosecutor who has to prove the claim that he is in fact guilty because it counters the default position.
The default position is important to recognize and agreed upon before any form of debate can be had. I've gotten the most ridiculous questions regarding the burden of proof like "Prove to me you exist" or "Prove to me you are not a rapist!". The easy answer is by default if you are in fact interacting with me and I respond then I do exist. It is now on you to actually determine that I don't. The default position is I am innocent of any crimes because I have no record, nor any reason for you to believe so. No one walks around and has a badge saying "I'm not a rapist". The default position is they aren't. It's on you to determine that I am something else because you are the one that brought it to attention with the claim.
The default position is there is no god. No one was born with a god which they knew about early into their lives. Something so grand the way religions make them out to be should be as obvious as the sun. Long before any kind of religion existed, the default position was no acknowledgement of a god. Somewhere, and somehow lunatics or conmen convinced a society that there was one or several by either providing flimsy evidence, flawed logic, or force. I also guess Pascal's wager which appeals to ones sense of "I'll just cover my bases and believe!". It's another submission of the mind that we decided to not follow our actual senses, nor sought evidence like any good intelligent primate.
I will close with this, as an atheist myself, and a person who seeks knowledge, and more accurately, correct knowledge. I don't want to be right, I want to be correct. There is a huge difference. Being right is appealing to my ego regardless of what the actual facts are. Being correct is means I'm simply on the proven side of the argument. I've got one life to live, I have no intention on wasting a second of it on trying to justify my ignorance. Being proven wrong is actually quite a good feeling for me. It means I've grown, and I've gotten better. Even more important is I don't get to look stupid in front of someone simply because I am arguing for something which is incorrect :D
what is faith? If you speak to a theist you'll often be told that it is a unshakable belief in the supernatural which comes from within. It is spoken of with reverence as if it is a gift which they choose to accept. Faith is comforting, it's personal, it's a connection to their god. Theists live on the word faith to justify their belief.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am in the minority here, but as a Christian, I define faith as trusting in something that you have reasons to believe is true. This entails trusting in something that you do have evidence for, or at least reasons to trust in it. I think this best describes how the word faith as used in scripture, but I agree many use the word “faith” as synonymous with wishful thinking. Faith makes a very poor epistemology, and it bothers me when I hear people use it in that way.
I agree that the person who makes a claim bears the burden of proof. Unfortunately for atheists, they aren’t simply contented in lacking a belief, they often make positive claims and decline any burden of proof because they are atheists… common example is “God is an imaginary old man in the sky”. Apart from the egregious straw man of this statement, this is a positive claim that the atheist needs to support, it’s not the job of the theist to disprove such a ridiculous statement. Default position or not, if the atheist claims that God does not in fact exist, they are claiming to know something about reality, that is a positive claim that bears an enormous burden of proof. Note that this is very different than saying, I don’t believe in a God. The first makes a positive claim regarding reality, the second is just a personal statement of belief which I agree really isn’t anything that bears the burden of proof. If you don’t want to bear the burden of proof, then be careful not to make a positive claim that cannot be defended because as you seem to suggest, atheism cannot be positively defended through logical argument or evidence. The default position if I can offer a suggestion is an agnostic “I don’t know if God exists”.
I can think of several deductive arguments off the top of my head that make a positive accumulative case for the existence of God that goes beyond a reasonable doubt. I like your trial by jury analogy because in the same way, murderers are convicted and thrown in jail without any direct evidence that places them at the scene of the crime. It’s based solely on a circumstantial case where every piece of evidence points to the suspect as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. In the same way, an accumulative circumstantial case can be made to the existence of God that goes beyond a reasonable doubt. Can the same robust accumulative case be made in the negation?
I like your last paragraph. I have adopted a similar stance, and can point to several areas in my life in the last few years where I have changed fairly drastically in my position on certain topics that I once held. I think that’s a good test to see if you are really open to following the evidence and truth wherever it leads.
Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteI think your point on the burden of proof is completely accurate. Making nay kind of claim, even as an atheist is still subject to proof.
It isn't the same when an atheist claims they do not believe the evidence. They aren't making a claim. An agnostic atheist, which is what most of us actually are, don't make a positive claim. However, you are right in that so many people do make the silly claim that god doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. at best, a gnostic atheist can use the premise that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Now, I feel perfectly justified to say the god of the bible is a work of fiction, because it's history can be traced back to much older religions and writings. It is easy to rationalize that it was all made up once you looked at the evidence. The gods of other religions also fall under the same issue. However, I can't prove that no super intelligent being exists. I can only say it is improbably. It's no different from saying you can't prove there isn't a teapot between Venus and Earth just floating in space. Can't disprove it, however it's highly improbable.
God's of religions; works of fiction. It's been proven.
Any god in general; highly improbable, most likely non existent.