Faith

I mentioned offhand in a previous AFTL discussion that I was sick of the religious declaring Atheists to also have their beliefs founded in faith.  This got me to thinking about the concept of "faith," and to what and whom it applies.

As a philologist, I of course understand that dictionary definitions are certainly not be-all, end-all, but it seems as good a place to begin as any (from m-w.com):


Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths  /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust

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


Usage falling under the first definition branch (e.g. "are these statements made in good faith?") is obviously not what I'm concerned with here.  The second and third branches, however, seem to pretty much encompass "religious" faith.  What I mean when I say "faith" in discussions about religion can be summed up with definition 2.b(1): "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"  (I would, however, substitute "conclusive backing evidence" for "proof" in the interest of more accurate language).

Since on this site the debate really is between Christianity and Atheism, I'll frame it in those terms.  "Christian" meaning a believer in what today we call the Bible, with particular emphasis on Jesus as simultaneous man and god, whom the God of the Bible sent as his son to die for the sins of humans and rose from the dead; "Atheist" meaning one who does not believe in the existence of any gods.

So, do Christians have faith?  I would say that if you call yourself a Christian according to my definition (which, I don't think, is terribly controversial), then yes, you do.  In spite of some at times amusing and at times depressing intellectual loop-de-loops of Biblical "historians" and "archaeologists," the vast, vast majority of the Bible is not corroborated by history or archaeology with even a tiny drop of conclusiveness.  That, however, is a topic for a whole different post!  Regardless, belief in the actual resurrection of Jesus or Noah's ark is surely a matter of faith.

Naturally, you may point out that there are particularly sensible Christians that see the Bible as a guidebook and religious text rather than a literal history, and that through the meaning <i>behind</i> the narrative, God's truth is revealed.  I would respond that this is a healthy way of viewing the Bible--and also surely based on faith in its composition, selection, and in most cases, translation, not to mention the presupposition of the existence of any god at all.

Now, all that was probably unnecessary, as most Christians would probably just agree straight out that their religion requires faith.  The real question here is whether Atheists have faith.  Let's look at the Atheist's key belief: "there is no deity."

I think that for most (if not all) Atheists, a slightly more detailed version of the statement might go like this:

1. In order for me to believe something exists, I must see conclusive empyrical evidence of its existence.
2. There is no conclusive empyrical evidence for the existence of any deity.
3. Therefore, I do not believe any deity exists.

Some claim that this is a positive statement, a positive belief, that is untestable and unprovable--and thus is a matter of faith.  On the face, this argument may seem compelling.  Indeed, what experiment could we conduct that would conclusively prove that no deity exists?  The explanation for its conclusion could be that perhaps the deity is able to temporarily hide from our senses; or perhaps, in pursuit of its hidden cosmic agenda, it waved its wand of omnipotence and caused the experimentors to arrive at their results; or perhaps it had simply gone on a metaphysical vacation at the time of the experiment.

Yes, I am being absurd on purpose.

It is, of course, just a version of the quite dull "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument, which suggests that Atheists must have some reason <i>other</i> than the lack of conclusive to not believe.  I am continually amazed when I see it pop up time and time again.  I think probably the best response I have seen comes from everyone's favorite, <a href="http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula">PZ Myers</a> (emphasis mine):

Absence of evidence is a legitimate argument for the absence of a phenomenon. If I claim there is a unicorn living in my backyard, but repeated attempts to observe and record it, or to find indirect evidence such as footprints or unicorn scat all fail, <b>it is perfectly reasonable to provisionally suggest that the claim is false, and to insist that any further consideration of the idea will require positive evidence from the claimant.</b>

Professor Myers's wording is a bit different--are we Atheists "provisionally suggest[ing]" that no deities exist, pending positive evidence?  Those of us who are sensible and intellectually honest are.

Now we come to the hypothetical "what would make you a believer?"  The question is not easy for us to answer, but not because of any "faith" on our part.  Phenomenon after phenomenon that was once attributed to deities has been demonstrated, by evidence, to have natural causes.  So, if we encountered a new, apparently divine, phenomenon, it would take more than initial inexplicability to be compelling.

To build on that point, this thoughtful, intellectually honest group of Atheists I've been describing do not, in fact, <i>mind</i> not being able to explain everything.  As any scientist worth his or her salt will inform you, science isn't done!  We don't have a 100% certain scientific explanation for <i>absolutely everything</i>.  But we also don't feel the need to appeal to divinity to fill these gaps--we simply carry on, earnestly attempting to figure out the answers.

Now, I have gone full-circle to what I consider the most "faithful" aspect of Christianity: its claim of <u>absolute truth</u>.  Now, for those who desire a easy answer to life, the universe and everything, faith is a great way to fulfill that desire.  For those who are more interested in the challenge figuring out the natural world presents, faith is not necessary.

I suppose I'll finish with a disclaimer, backwards as that may be.  I'm not disparaging faith, or calling the faithful "stupid."  Indeed, I am not hostile to religion <i>as a rule</i>.  I have known many good Christians, grew up in a Christian church, and have seen firsthand the peace and strength of mind and will that faith can give individuals.  However, I have not found a useful place for faith in my life, and I am not worse off for it.  If you have faith, and it works for you, by all means, have it!  But don't declare your faith to be an absolute truth that ought to apply to everyone.