Do Atheists Have Faith?

In a debate with the New Atheist Christopher Hitchens, presuppositionalist Doug Wilson argued that we all have faith in something (many spiritualists have faith in their deities -- or spiritual entities -- while atheists and agnostics have faith in reason). Consequently, it is meaningless to claim (many) spiritualists are irrational for believing in something based on faith instead of reason, since atheists also have faith in something (according to Doug, at least).

Quote: "Someone who bases everything on reason has faith in the reasoning process. What's wrong with saying that? Why can't you say 'I have faith in reason'?"

Now, some of you may want to justify the reliability of your reasoning process (in other words, to prove you're not insane). For example, you may wish to provide an argument based on past experience. But notice this very argument will rely on reason in order to work. Therefore, your argument will be based on circular reasoning (begging the question), and this is fallacious. That is, to the question "How do you know reason is reliable?" you may answer "Because reason tells me so." This is clearly circular.

So, how would you reply to this challenge? Do you agree with Doug that you also have faith in something?

(Note: it is important to define the meaning of 'faith' here. In this context faith is being defined as belief without sound justifications. And 'reason' is defined as a cognitive process that works in accordance with deductive, inductive and abductive rules).

Philosopher Gene Witmer explained it very nicely:

“One point that comes up frequently in these exchanges with presuppositionalists is the status of assumptions or presuppositions. … It's said that the presuppositionalist theist presupposes such things as that the Bible is God's word, that God exists... and so on, and that this is okay. … The point is just this: It seems that some beliefs are reasonable even without being supported by argument. We all, in fact, take beliefs formed by perceptual processes to be true, where we do this without having an argument for doing so. If you say that you have an argument for thinking that perception can be trust[ed], this argument will itself rely on premises; the question you face, then, is whether these premises... can [be] defend[ed] by argument, or whether they are just taken for granted. Eventually you must, it seems, end up with some premises or ways of forming beliefs that you just take for granted. If this is indeed inevitable – taking some beliefs for granted without argument – then a very nice question here is just: why some beliefs and not others? The presuppositionalist might claim that he takes for granted the belief that God exists, is the author of scripture, and so on; and he can say… that he is merely doing what all the rest of us do when we take for granted that our senses are mostly accurate detectors of the external world and so on. ... It's important not to try to respond to the presuppositionalist by insisting that you, in fact, never take anything for granted. If you make such a bold and unqualified claim, you're setting yourself up for a fall... as this is almost surely false, and it leaves you very vulnerable.” (Atheism, Reason, and Morality: Responding to Some Popular Christian Apologetics, pp. 5-6, 18)

A problem with the question is that "faith" has multiple definitions.
- Trust a person will keep their word.
- Belief in unseen things without evidence, ie, religious faith.
- Reliable expectation (inductive reasoning) that what's been
consistent before will continue, eg, the laws of thermodynamics.

The reasoning process demonstrates its utility, though, so there's no faith needed. I can notice that if I use reason, I most often get the outcome that I was going for. Then I take it as a tentative working model for how to conduct myself, until I discover some more reliable method. This isn't circular.

Don't confuse faith with induction.

AlexanderG said:

The reasoning process demonstrates its utility, though, so there's no faith needed. I can notice that if I use reason, I most often get the outcome that I was going for. Then I take it as a tentative working model for how to conduct myself, until I discover some more reliable method.

Click to expand...

How do you know that? Have you used reason to determine this?

Revoltingest said:

A problem with the question is that "faith" has multiple definitions.
- Trust a person will keep their word.
- Belief in unseen things without evidence, ie, religious faith.
- Reliable expectation (inductive reasoning) that what's been
consistent before will continue, eg, the laws of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's why I defined it right there, to avoid confusion.

Φᅠᅠ said:

In a debate with the New Atheist Christopher Hitchens, presuppositionalist Doug Wilson argued that we all have faith in something (many spiritualists have faith in their deities -- or spiritual entities -- while atheists and agnostics have faith in reason). Consequently, it is meaningless to claim (many) spiritualists are irrational for believing in something based on faith instead of reason, since atheists also have faith in something (according to Doug, at least).

Quote: "Someone who bases everything on reason has faith in the reasoning process. What's wrong with saying that? Why can't you say 'I have faith in reason'?"

Now, some of you may want to justify the reliability of your reasoning process (in other words, to prove you're not insane). For example, you may wish to provide an argument based on past experience. But notice this very argument will rely on reason in order to work. Therefore, your argument will be based on circular reasoning (begging the question), and this is fallacious. That is, to the question "How do you know reason is reliable?" you may answer "Because reason tells me so." This is clearly circular.

So, how would you reply to this challenge? Do you agree with Doug that you also have faith in something?

(Note: it is important to define the meaning of 'faith' here. In this context faith is being defined as belief without justification. And 'reason' is defined as a cognitive process that works in accordance with deductive, inductive and abductive rules).

Click to expand...

I don't think you will get far with defining faith like that. Any religious believer can justify his or her beliefs to themselves, if not to a standard that everyone would accept.

It seems to me that we all rely on faith, all the time, simply because it is impractical to check the truth or reliability of everything we depend on for ourselves, every time. I have faith in my doctor, and faith in the laws of thermodynamics and faith in the ability of my car to transport me without breaking down.

Wilson, however, clearly means to suggest something quite different by his use of "faith": something metaphysical, a sort of non-religious counterpart to religious faith. But I have trouble coming up with any definition of that which makes sense. Which makes me think his suggestion may be wrong.

exchemist said:

Any religious believer can justify his or her beliefs to themselves, if not to a standard that everyone would accept.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's why I said, "many". I didn't say "all". I worded it carefully to avoid these confusions.

exchemist said:

Wilson, however, clearly means to suggest something quite different by his use of "faith": something metaphysical, a sort of non-religious counterpart to religious faith. But I have trouble coming up with any definition of that which makes sense. Which makes me think his suggestion may be wrong.

Click to expand...

He simply means belief without justification as I wrote in my note.

Φᅠᅠ said:

In a debate with the New Atheist Christopher Hitchens, presuppositionalist Doug Wilson argued that we all have faith in something (many spiritualists have faith in their deities -- or spiritual entities -- while atheists and agnostics have faith in reason). Consequently, it is meaningless to claim (many) spiritualists are irrational for believing in something based on faith instead of reason, since atheists also have faith in something (according to Doug, at least).

Quote: "Someone who bases everything on reason has faith in the reasoning process. What's wrong with saying that? Why can't you say 'I have faith in reason'?"

Now, some of you may want to justify the reliability of your reasoning process (in other words, to prove you're not insane). For example, you may wish to provide an argument based on past experience. But notice this very argument will rely on reason in order to work. Therefore, your argument will be based on circular reasoning (begging the question), and this is fallacious. That is, to the question "How do you know reason is reliable?" you may answer "Because reason tells me so." This is clearly circular.

So, how would you reply to this challenge? Do you agree with Doug that you also have faith in something?

(Note: it is important to define the meaning of 'faith' here. In this context faith is being defined as belief without sound justifications. And 'reason' is defined as a cognitive process that works in accordance with deductive, inductive and abductive rules).

Click to expand...

I’m fine with this. We all have these kinds of axioms that all worldviews adopt. The problem enters when people try to make things axioms that aren’t transcendental in this way (e.g. that our cognitive faculties work is transcendental to making any argument at all). So we could say that making too many things axiomatic isn’t parsimonious.

Φᅠᅠ said:

Sure, that's why I said, "many". I didn't say "all". I worded it carefully to avoid these confusions.



He simply means belief without justification as I wrote in my note.

Click to expand...

My point is that nobody thinks he has faith in anything without justification. (I see you have now added the qualifier "sound" to justification, but I'm not convinced that solves the problem.)

Φᅠᅠ said:

In a debate with the New Atheist Christopher Hitchens, presuppositionalist Doug Wilson argued that we all have faith in something (many spiritualists have faith in their deities -- or spiritual entities -- while atheists and agnostics have faith in reason). Consequently, it is meaningless to claim (many) spiritualists are irrational for believing in something based on faith instead of reason, since atheists also have faith in something (according to Doug, at least).

Quote: "Someone who bases everything on reason has faith in the reasoning process. What's wrong with saying that? Why can't you say 'I have faith in reason'?"

Now, some of you may want to justify the reliability of your reasoning process (in other words, to prove you're not insane). For example, you may wish to provide an argument based on past experience. But notice this very argument will rely on reason in order to work. Therefore, your argument will be based on circular reasoning (begging the question), and this is fallacious. That is, to the question "How do you know reason is reliable?" you may answer "Because reason tells me so." This is clearly circular.

So, how would you reply to this challenge? Do you agree with Doug that you also have faith in something?

(Note: it is important to define the meaning of 'faith' here. In this context faith is being defined as belief without sound justifications. And 'reason' is defined as a cognitive process that works in accordance with deductive, inductive and abductive rules).

Click to expand...

Faith is worthless.

exchemist said:

My point is that nobody thinks he has faith in anything without justification. (I see you have now added the qualifier "sound" to justification, but I'm not convinced that solves the problem.)

Click to expand...

But we do have belief in things without justification.

For instance the belief that justification is meaningful itself obviously can’t be justified (because it must already be believed to be justified).

There are many such beliefs we have that are axiomatic by necessity.

Admitting this harms nobody.

Meow Mix said:

I’m fine with this. We all have these kinds of axioms that all worldviews adopt. The problem enters when people try to make things axioms that aren’t transcendental in this way (e.g. that our cognitive faculties work is transcendental to making any argument at all). So we could say that making too many things axiomatic isn’t parsimonious.

Click to expand...

So, you're a foundationalist.ㅤ:）

Φᅠᅠ said:

So, you're a foundationalist.ㅤ:）

Click to expand...

I am probably some kind of foundherentist.

Φᅠᅠ said:

In this context faith is being defined as belief without sound justifications

Click to expand...

I don't know of any other theist who would define faith in this way, and I don't know of anyone who would say that they have this kind of faith. A person is not going to believe something unless they think they're justified in believing it. I would wonder how exactly you're using the term "justification."

Danielle Dark said:

I don't know of any other theist who would define faith in this way, and I don't know of anyone who would say that they have this kind of faith. A person is not going to believe something unless they think they're justified in believing it. I would wonder how exactly you're using the term "justification."

Click to expand...

I read from the context that by “justification”
Phi means epistemic justifiers.

Φᅠᅠ said:

How do you know that? Have you used reason to determine this?

Click to expand...

Do I need "reason" to notice a distinct pattern of outcomes resulting from a certain causal input? I don't think so. Can't a dog or mouse or shark do this? Are you saying they can "reason" only because they have some ironclad conceptual justification for the foundation of reason? Or is it just a basic cognitive function (behavior corresponding to patterns in reality in order to achieve desired outcomes) that evolved because it is beneficial to survival?

Do I need "knowledge" to draw a tentative inference? I don't think so.

Nor do I need "reason" to describe a thought using language. I'm really not interested in presuppositionalist garbage.

AlexanderG said:

Do I need "reason" to notice a distinct pattern of outcomes resulting from a certain causal input? I don't think so. Can't a dog or mouse or shark do this? Are you saying they can "reason" only because they have some ironclad conceptual justification for the foundation of reason? Or is it just a basic cognitive function (behavior corresponding to patterns in reality in order to achieve desired outcomes) that evolved because it is beneficial to survival?

Do I need "knowledge" to draw a tentative inference? I don't think so.

Nor do I need "reason" to describe a thought using language. I'm really not interested in presuppositionalist garbage.

Click to expand...

Yes, though: that you’re observing reality at all is axiomatic.

Meow Mix said:

Yes, though: that you’re observing reality at all is axiomatic.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I could replace "reality" with "apparent reality" in any of my arguments and I don't think it would detract from anything.

"I perceive an interaction with apparent thing X, and it usually causes me to experience sensation Y, so I tentatively associate X with Y." It still works, and I don't think there's anything here that I need to justify to prove I'm using "reason." There's also no faith involved, no matter how you define faith. Like I said, a mouse can do this.

AlexanderG said:

Fair enough, but I could replace "reality" with "apparent reality" in any of my arguments and I don't think it would detract from anything.

"I perceive an interaction with apparent thing X, and it usually causes me to experience sensation Y, so I tentatively associate X with Y." It still works, and I don't think there's anything here that I need to justify to prove I'm using "reason." There's also no faith involved, no matter how you define faith. Like I said, a mouse can do this.

Click to expand...

I mean, yes, but this is philosophy: making mountains out of mole hills sometimes is important because later on, those mole hills might be important in a more complex way.

I don't think there's anything wrong with simply noting that there are a few things all worldviews must presuppose, silly things like "my cognitive faculties are capable of discerning truth from falsity."

I think it's important to recognize that we could never justify that because we must presuppose it to attempt to justify it.

In the same way that the response to some skeptics' questions when they ask, "why should I fund this particle accelerator," and the answer is sometimes, "because knowledge is its own benefit, can lead to previously unthought of directions," and so on, I think this is true in philosophy as well.

We shouldn't deny that we make presuppositions just because it sounds unsavory. It might give us better epistemologies and ontologies higher up the reasoning tree.