[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

Fri Nov 26 14:47:00 UTC 2004

On Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:56 PM Fred C. Moulton
moulton at moulton.com wrote:
> Part of the problem in this discussion is that
> the word faith has multiple uses.

I agree, but of the ones you list below, only 2b (1) is relevant.
Generally, there are three ways I've noticed people use "faith."  One is
as a synonym for "confidence" -- as in "I have faith that Joe can do the
job."  This type of faith has nothing to do with this issue and, in
fact, does not have any major epistemological ramifications.  It's
purely a stand in for "confidence."  Of course, the usual dyad with this
type of faith is faith/skepticism -- "I have faith Joe can do the job"
and "You are skeptical that he can."  But people typically use both
terms in this context to refer to stuff that can rely on arguments and
evidence.  E.g., "I have faith Joe can do the job because I've seen him
in action before and know his qualities."  It's not blind faith.  E.g.,
"You are skeptical that Joe can because it's a tough job -- tougher than
anything he's ever done before and more experienced people than he have
failed."  (I.e., it's not radical skepticism or blind faith in either
case.)

Another one is belief without justification -- "firm belief in something
for which there is no proof."  This could even meaning holding a believe
that seems logically or evidentially consistent with the rest of one's
beliefs, but for which there's no particular decesive proof or evidence
for it one way or the other.  (An example could be belief that there's
intelligent life on other worlds.  Notice that this isn't really all
that radical a claim.)

A third and much more radical one is Tertullian's type of faith -- 
believing something because it goes against proof and evidence -- 
believing things because they are impossible or illogical, actually
contradition logic and the evidence.  To put it bluntly: holding an
irrational belief.  (Tertullian and many of the early Church fathers
were quite specific about this too.  It wasn't some Ancient atheists who
pointed this out to them, but they who brought it up themselves.)  Most
Christian theologians and philosophers have adamantly argued for faith
of the third kind above -- Tertullian's "I believe it because it's
impossible."  I'm not sure any major Christian thinker or church holds
otherwise.

Leaving aside the first type of faith, as it has nothing to do with this
issue, were there no evidence and no valid arguments for or against
God/gods, then both the atheist and the theist would be left with faith
of the second kind above.  They'd either have to believe or not believe
without proof or evidence.  However, there are arguments that tip the
balance in favor of the atheist, starting with the Stratoconian
Presumption -- there must be sufficient reason to postulate God/gods* -- 
to showing that the concept of God/gods is contradictory (detailed in
Smith _Atheism: The Case Against God_ and many other books on atheism)
to [I hate to bring him up] Leonard Peikoff's "primacy of existence"
argument (detailed in his _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_).

This answers Mike Lorrey's view that "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence."  Granted, but this doesn't apply in this case.
The arguments listed above weigh against God/gods.  The Simulation
Argument also is not relevant either, since those creating a simulation
would not really be God/gods -- no more than someone making a film or
writing a book is God.  Yes, one could logically believe that this
universe was made by intelligent beings, but that would make those
intelligent beings gods -- except metaphorically.

There's also a difference between the ontology and the cognition here.
Any given theist might believe in God/gods out of ignorance of these
arguments and without sufficient familiarity with the evidence.  That
wouldn't mean she or he believed on either type of faith.  In her or his
context, there would be some validation -- though faulty and based on
ignorance -- for the belief.  However, this is the cognitive side -- 
looking at why someone believes what they do NOT whether the particular
belief is true.  I'm only bringing this up because one shouldn't presume
that because a person holds a wrong belief, she or he is holding it on
the kind of radical, Tertullian faith.  However, a person holding a
wrong belief is still holding a wrong believe.  A young child might
believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat, when, in fact, it's
not.  Her or his belief is not irrational, but it is wrong.

> The Merriam-Webster online dictionary
> may not be the world's best but since
> the online OED requires a subscription
> I will take the definition found at:
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=faith&x=0&y=0
> Dropping the derivation info we have left:
> 1. 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
> b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of
> intentions
> 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) :
> belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
> b (1) : firm belief in something for which there
> is no proof (2) : complete trust
> 3 : something that is believed especially with
> strong conviction; especially : a system of
> religious beliefs synonym see BELIEF
> - in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY
>
> So lets examine these:
>
> Definition number 1 refers to "allegiance"
> and "fidelity to one's promises" and "sincerity
> of intentions".  I do not see how being an
> Atheist necessarily implies any of the aspects
> of definition 1.

Granted, but see above.  This type of faith really is not germane to the
issue.  It's merely a synonym for loyalty.

> Definition 2 seems to be dealing with religious
> matters but here again there is nothing which
> logically links Atheism with faith.  For example
> you can be an Atheist without having a "firm
> belief in something for which there is no proof".

Right, and this fits with both the second and third kinds of atheism
list by me above -- belief without proof or belief against proof.

> Definition 3 also fails because Atheism is
> not something that is believed such as a
> system of religious beliefs.

Well, to use "faith" as a stand in for "strong conviction" is also
outside the scope of atheism/theism.  One could have strong or weak
convictions in either.  It's not epistemologically decisive.  But you're
right in that atheism is not a system of beliefs.  It's merely the lack
of one belief.  This explains, e.g., many strands of secular humanism
and even Marxism on some level.  They tend to hold many beliefs that're
similar to Christianity, specifically the moral precepts.  This is not
an attack on Christianity or any of these belief systems.  I'm only
illustrating that the belief in God component doesn't seem essential for
all the doctrines of any given religion.  (I bring this up because a
typical refrain from religious types is that if you don't believe in
God, you don't believe in anything and they often package-deal atheism
with skepticism, nihilism, cynicism, etc.)

> As has already been mentioned the works
> of George H. Smith on Atheism provide
> clear and very readable discussions of
> these matters.  Also see the book The
> Retreat to Commitment by W. W. Bartley.
> Familiarity with the work of Smith and
> Bartley should clear up the confusion.

While Bartley does show how Protestanism evolve to immunize itself from
any proof, the same holds for Christianity in general and his
Pancritical Rationalism has its problems.  See my "Comments on
Pancritical Rationalism" at:

http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html

> Thus it seems to me that anyone who
> wants to make the statement that "Atheism
> is as much a matter of faith as theism" needs
> to provide some further argument than to
> merely repeat what I think I and several others
> have demonstrated is an incorrect statement.

I agree, though with the qualification of my comments in this and my
earlier post.  Any particular person may believe just about anything on
the kind of epistemic faith discussed above.  However, if one proceeds
to actually looking for arguments and evidence for this question, one
will find that theists will have to yield the field -- either changing
their belief or adopting/admitting faith as the ground of their belief
in God/gods.

> Disclaimer:  George H. Smith is a friend of
> mine.  So, yes I am recommending books
> by a friend however he is one of the top
> authors on this subject.

Irrelevant.:)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/FamilySOG.html

*  This is usually stated that the burden of proof is on those proposing
new/unknown entities like God/gods.