Do Atheists Have Faith?
Posted by exquisitetruth on May 3, 2008
Most every atheist, with the courage to share his or her views, has at one time or another been told, by a person of faith, that atheism is simply another religion, and requires just as much faith as any other. Some will argue that we can’t possibly know that there is no god. We take it on faith. Scientists can’t answer every question, and for those that they can, we put our faith in their conclusions.
There is a term for the logical fallacy presented here; it’s called an argument from authority. To make an argument from authority, you begin with the premise that a person or group of persons is in a position of such authority that their claims are above reproach. Arguments from authority are common in politics, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” In the school yard, “Because the teacher said so”, and in religion, “. . . by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error”
The flaw in arguments from authority is that authority in itself is not proof. It is perfectly possible that an authoritative claim is true, but it is not necessarily true by virtue of its authority. We know for a fact that the authoritative claims leading up to the invasion of Iraq were false. We also know that the Christian church has made many authoritative claims throughout history that have later been proven false. An argument from authority must be accompanied by corroborating proofs to be considered compelling.
We can easily establish that religion is almost entirely an argument from authority. Christians believe that the Bible is the holy word of God. Why do they believe this? Because they have been told it is so, by the Bible no less. They accept as bedrock truth that Jesus is the son of God incarnate and having died on the cross, he rose from the dead and ascended bodily into Heaven. They believe these things because the Bible states them, and they have accepted the Bible as an authoritative source on its own merit.
Another name for an argument from authority is faith. What exactly is faith? According to dictionary.com, Faith is defined as:
- Confidence or trust in a person or thing
- Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
- Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc
Confidence or trust in a person or thing is a textbook example of an argument from authority. It describes exactly what religious people do when they turn to the Bible, or the clergy for answers or guidance. It is precisely what the faithful do when they listen to a sermon.
The second definition, a belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religions, is self evident. It describes faith as the very essence of religiosity.
Without a doubt, religions all have a code of ethics, called morality, and a standard of merit. You must live up to this standard in order to receive your rewards in the afterlife.
The question we need to answer is; are atheists guilty of relying on arguments from authority, and do those arguments form the foundation of our world view? Are atheists relying on faith?
Let’s start with our first definition. Do atheists place their confidence or trust in persons or things? Without a doubt, we do. We have great confidence in the academic community, and the results they produce. Without the trust we place in experts, there would be very little we could know about our world.
What about belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion? Let’s change the pronouns for the sake of fairness, and rephrase this as; a belief in someone or in the doctrines or teaching of an organization. Well, this could be applied to atheists, couldn’t it? After all, we place great stock in scientists, and what they have to say about the natural world.
As for the third definition, atheists do hold to a code of ethics. These ethics are normally based on naturalistic values, and they can vary from one person to another. But I think it’s fair to say that all atheists have a personal code of ethics they aspire to follow. A standard of merit could describe the scientific process. There is a clear standard that must be met in order to be considered valuable.
Another aspect of faith is a faith in natural processes. We have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and that when we walk out our front doors, gravity will keep us from floating off into space. We have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that these things will hold true from one second to the next, but we behave as if they will. We put our faith in these constancies.
We come now to the core question; do these acts of faith constitute an argument from authority, and therefore, a logical fallacy? There is a distinct difference between the forms of faith practiced by atheists and the religious.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims all elevate the act of faith to a virtue. To believe in God on the authority of the claims made on his behalf is a holy act that will be rewarded at a later date. Faith is one thing all three creeds agree is required for salvation. You must accept these claims to be true without evidence, or face eternal punishment.
Atheists use faith as one more tool in their arsenal. We demand proof where it can be had, and we scrutinize any claim for validity. In order for a scientific claim to have merit, it must be reproducible, and capable of making predictions that can be verified. Even then, these claims must stand up to constant challenge. Faith is essential because there is no absolute certainty. We have no way of knowing that our senses are representing the world with 100% accuracy.
A theist’s faith is a dogmatic thing, based on claims of revealed truths that are beyond reproach. Their world view is static, and when information comes along to challenge that view, the information itself must be modified, or dismissed altogether. Their world model becomes a contorted pretzel of logical fallacies and deliberate distortions of fact.
An atheist’s faith is based on observation and corroboration. Our faith in the natural world is a malleable thing. It is composed of a constantly growing catalog of information. As new information calls old assumptions into question, they are modified or abandoned. We are atheists because we require that anything we learn fit our world model. If it does not, either the information or the model is flawed, and must be reassessed.
To describe atheism as a religion is a semantic trick that does not hold up to critical scrutiny. Atheism, as the name implies, is a lack of theism. It is a rejection of revealed truths, and a denial of dogma.
This entry was posted on May 3, 2008 at 5:12 pm and is filed under Let's be Reasonable. Tagged: atheist, faith, argument from authority, logical fallacy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Do Atheists Have Faith? said
[...] jlrcm2008 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMost every atheist, with the courage to share his or her views, has at one time or another been told, by a person of faith, that atheism is simply another religion, and requires just as much faith as any other. … [...]
podcast directory said
I absolutely agree
NOYDMB said
Every human has faith in something.
Anyone who believes the sun will rise the next day (and doesn’t take into account the probability that the Sun will suddenly supernova tomorrow) has faith (a belief) that the sun will rise tomorrow. While the probability that the Sun will not rise tomorrow is very (very very very) small, there is still a faith that the most probable thing will occur over the highly improbable one. This, is known in Statistical Mechanics, as a truth: the most probable thing will occur most often. However, there is no certainty that the most probable thing will occur. Any atheist who believes the Sun will rise tomorrow (no doubt) has faith in that.
Those who claim to be atheists also have quite a bit of faith in other human beings. They assume that human beings can.
Observe all things.
Comprehend all things.
Control all things.
This is inherent in modern scientific thought. Given an infinite amount of time, there is nothing in the Universe that exists that could not be observed. If it can be observed, in an infinite amount of time, humans could comprehend. And given infinite time, they would find a way to control it. Atheists assume that only things which are physically observalbe are real (and if they can’t observe it, it doesn’t exist). (You’ll never hear someone who loves someone else honestly and consistently use this argument, because love is not physically quantifiable).
Believers reject these premises. They do not say that everything that exists exists as is now phsyically discernable, and that in order to comprehend full truth we must (somehow) be united with a higher power. They view the amount of understanding we have to be a gift from God (thus allowing even the atheist to fulfill the purposes of God). They recognize that we don’t know everything know and that in the future more knowledge will be given, but not understood because of the inherent goodness, intelligence, and thoughtfulness of man, but as a gift from God.
It is amamzing to me, to watch an atheistic science PhD advisor have faith in “science’s” ability to always tell the truth, and never have any bias. His is an instantaneous faith, not an in-the-end. He honestly doesn’t believe that politics plays any role in science, he thinks it is pure. While that may be the ideal, that is certainly not the reality.
My faith, my hope, does not rely in men, or in the arm of flesh. I am committed to the ideals of the scientific method, but my faith is in God. I honestly perform with in the scientific method because I believe that God has given us the ability to understand the vast majority of the world around us. But to completely trust in our own understanding is a pride and foolishness I will not engage in, and ask that atheists try to not impose this belief onto others, even as I don’t impose by unprovable beliefs on any atheist, even my hard-core diehard PhD advisor.
exquisitetruth said
You use two different definitions for faith, and interchange them at will to create a false equality. Faith in observable phenomenon continuing to behave in a way that is a near statistical certainty is quite different in having absolute faith in something completely unobservable.
My faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow is based on many years of experience, and and an understanding of the mechanics of the Sun, and our orbit around it. These things can be measured. Predictions can be made based on our observations, and those predictions can be tested.
Your faith in God is deliberately relegated to the unobservable, and the untestable. Your faith in God is a faith based not only on a lack of evidence, but a wealth of contradictory evidence. It is a very different thing from statistical mechanics.
You said,
Those who claim to be atheists also have quite a bit of faith in other human beings. They assume that human beings can.
Observe all things.
Comprehend all things.
Control all things.
This is nothing but a strawman argument. No atheist I know of has ever made this claim, and it does not reflect my own view. From a scientific perspective, we do not worry ourselves with things we can not observe, or comprehend, because the scientific method can’t possible be applied. That’s inherent in the process. How can we possible know anything about something we can not observe? Of course, that does not stop True Believers from speculating wildly on the nature of God, and his will. When it is convenient, your relationship with God is a real and tangible thing. When pressed to a corner, he become a wisp of smoke; a nothing with no consequence, and not even a statistical impact on the world. That’s why atheists dismiss him. Because all we have to indicate that there really is a God is an ancient book. There is nothing in the world to tell us that there is one, and no reason to suppose he exists.
I speak of what atheists believe as a group only in the broadest of terms, because, in the end, atheist only have one thing in common, which is that we do not believe in God. There are vast differences in what atheists do believe.
NOYDMB said
My faith is not unobservable. It may not quantifiable in the phsyical sense. I can’t cut out my heart and weigh it to determine how much faith is in it. But that does not mean that it is not real. It is also not untestable. Just because you can’t test my faith doesn’t mean it isn’t tested. And you should be careful about the many, many assumptions you have made about me, and most believers. Your assumptions only show how little you know about believers, and any believer who reads your comments would be hard pressed to not condemn you in your arrogance as you condemn them for believing.
You have know idea about the evidences that I have of God. And there is not a single piece of contradictory evidence to God’s existence. Not an iota. Do you know how physically impossible it is to DISPROVE God’s existence? Lack of evidence (viewed on the general level of every human’s existence) does not mean the lack of existence. Scientifically, one can only claim agnosticism, the lack of knowledge. No scientist can scientifcally say “There is NO God.” That statement is a faith-based, truth claim. I can respect a scientist who says, “I don’t believe in a God, but I can’t disprove the existence of one. I’m agnostic.” But the dogmatic atheist who says, “I know that there is no God” has more faith than any believer I know. They just happen to raise their own intellect above that of the 95% of the worlds population that just happen to believe there is a God or a higher power
There is a completely untestble assumption. Just because it has happened the same way a trillion times beforehand doesn’t mean it can’t change the next day. If you have faith the sun will raise (no doubt) it is faith. If you recognize the (incredibly) small probabability that the sun will not rise tomorrow, you are at least consistent. The same is true for those who flip a coin. If you flip a coin 5 times, and each time get a heads, the next time you flip the probability is still 50%. That’s statistics. Yet, having faith that you’l still get a heads because of the 5 times previous, that’s faith. Just because there have been some odd billion years since the last supernova that has affected our planet doesn’t mean you’re any safer today than you would be the day before it actually goes. Statistically, you have the same amount of danger today. Of course, if it went, your day would suck (or would it blow?) tremendously. Yet, you don’t worry about that, do you. You enjoy your day, secure in your faith that the sun will rise again on this planet. If you take faith in your statistics, great. If I take faith in God. That’s my choice. But I’ll not listen to someone mistakenly apply “SCIENCE” to say “We’ve proven there is no God.” It destroys the credibility of science just as much as Korean scientists who fake cloning, or American physicsts that fake fusion. And the way science is losing funding, that’s not a good road for the atheists to be leading us down, now is it?
It is a very different thing from statistical mechanics.
NOYDMB said
While the atheists never state these assumptions, I can show that these assumptions are present in their reasoning. It is not a strawman argument, just because you haven’t recognized the assumptions in the past.
You have actually proven my point.
You used an analogy where you say.
“You can’t prove that God exists.” As though I have to prove that God exists in order for him to exist. Hydrogen existed in the sun long before we were able to detect the Balmer lines, understand the numerology, and fit them to the hydrogenic model of the atom. Scientists assume that anything worth knowing can be observed (at least to the precision of hbar/2). That is an observation. Without an observation scientists cannot know that something exists. We have to make assumptions about things we cannot observe (therefore they don’t really exist). We assume a wavefunction in Quantum Mechanis, not because we can prove their existence, but because it works out it such a way that we can find physical observables. Anything that can be observed is real. Given enough time, we could calculate the physical observables for all atoms and molecules. Given enough time we can (conceivably) calculate everything there is to know about biology, and in infinite time, we can learn to control all physical observables. That is the point of science. If we can’t observe it, then why try. If we can’t understand it, then why try to observe it. If we can’t control it, then why try to understand.
An atheist who doesn’t make these assumptions would do less than an amorphous blob of play-doh. But we believe that through the scientific method we can understand the physical world through observation, through hypothesis, through testing, through revision. Certainly within our limited lifetimes we cannot observe, comprehend, or control all, but there is no physical limit to our ability to do these things to within an appreciable limit. We just need time.
“From a scientific perspective, we do not worry ourselves with things we can not observe, or comprehend, because the scientific method can’t possible be applied.” Well said. So quit trying to disprove there’s a God and maybe I can get the crazy Evangelicals to stop trying to prove that there is one. But you gotta remember, a lot of “so-called scientists” have been attacking religion for quite awhile, and have thus been worrying themselves with things they cannot observe, comprehend, or control. It drives believers nuts.
“How can we possible know anything about something we can not observe?” This argument only works if we first assume that God cannot be observed. Not all observations occur physically. I do not believe that God is not observable. And wonder what evidence you have that God is not observable. If you had some actual evidence (instead of a lack thereof), then you might be able to make an argument. I can’t prove to you some of the things I have experienced, but my lack of proof doesn’t make my experience invalid. I can’t prove to you my first crush was on a girl named Allyson, yet you cannot disprove it either. A true scientist would remain, respectfully, agnostic.
If you knew anything of the history of science, you’d know about some of the crazy models of the old Quantum mechanics. When things previously physically unobservable became observable due to technological advances. You would then know, that some of our greatest scientists did some of the greatest speculating, wildly, on the nature of the atom, and his will. I’ll forgive the scientists if you’ll forgive believers for speculating based on the evidence they have available on the Adam, and his Creator.
“When it is convenient, your relationship with God is a real and tangible thing. When pressed to a corner, he become a wisp of smoke; a nothing with no consequence, and not even a statistical impact on the world.”
Again with the assumptions and other foolishness. Your many words do not make you sound wise. I have never conveniently said that God has no impact on the world. I have never said he was of no consequence, and nothing in my logic would have those be assumptions. You should be very careful in your epistimology as it makes you look quite foolish wrt believers.
Atheists dismiss God because of their own arrogance in claiming that they “Know that there is no God.” I can respect an agnostic, but atheists have knowledge of things for which they admit there is no evidence. There is NO evidence that there is no God, therefore to claim there is no God is to disobey the rules of evidence.
“Because all we have to indicate that there really is a God is an ancient book.” Just because that is all the evidence you are aware of does not mean that that is all the evidence there is. And as has previously been shown, the lack of evidence doesn’t prove something doesn’t exist. For instance, I could claim the author I’m currently arguing with doesn’t exist as a human, but is actually a monkey typing on a typewriter producing an argument (of some form against me). I have no evidence that he’s human. But my lack of evidence doesn’t disprove his humanity. It would prove me foolish if I were to place my faith in that as “absolute truth.” If I were to say, well, it’s possible that it is a monkey on a typewriter but I highly doubt it, I would at least be an honest person it admitting a probablility of something for which I have little knowledge.
“There is nothing in the world to tell us that there is one, and no reason to suppose he exists.”
Many more people in the world, past and present disagree with you. Simply stating this does not make it so. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the data, because you claim to know things that are really unknowable. Are you really that arrogant to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as unreasonable? There are at least Millions of Christians who interpret the data different than you do, is saying there are many things in the world “that tell us there is One.”
It is untrue to state that Atheists “do not believe in God.” Atheists believe “There is no God.” Atheists are positive deniers, they positively believe that no God exists. Agnostics may “not believe in God”. It would be well for the monkey behind the keyboard across the way to learn how to use google for definitions (Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism). (I hope you took that as irony and not an attack, it was an attempt at humor.)
This definition is what leads even areligious groups like the Masons to decry the Godless atheists. Even an agnostic who could recognize knowledge, wisdom, or physics as an higher truth than our crass existence would be on better grounds with the masons.
exquisitetruth said
So, your essential point is that the burden of proof does not lie with the claimant? You are allowed to make whatever claims, no matter how fantastic, and it is the scientific community’s duty to give it equal credence with all other theories? If this is the case, the job of scientist would be easy indeed.
When I say there is no God, I say so because nobody has ever been able to provide a scenario in which the premise of a divine being was the simplest and most reasonable answer.
You use the example of quantum mechanics, but it is a false analogy. We understood much of what we expected of quantum mechanical properties before we had the tools to measure them because we could measure their effects. No scientist says that nothing can exist without being able to observe it. But most scientists would agree that there is no point in dwelling over phenomenon that can not be observed either directly or indirectly, and do not have identifiable effects on observable phenomenon.
Insisting that agnosticism is the default position is to suggest that we have to give credence to every fantastic claim someone decides to present.
I am not particularly interested in disproving God’s existence, since it is a moot point. My real concern is in a society that insists on comporting itself as if there was a big, bearded man in the sky watching everything we do. It’s the absurdity of this premise, and their insistence that we all live as if it is true, that frustrates me and motivates me to speak out against it.