Do Atheists Have Faith?

[Magical Wand]

Because there's plenty of interesting debate to be had, without resorting to claims that one's own circular argument is "virtuously" circular, while asserting one's unevidenced baseless position is true by definition and responding to anyone's questions with, "but how do you know you're really thinking your thoughts right now? Tell me first or I won't answer your question."

Well, this idea of "virtuous circularity" is absurd. But the presup need not appeal to this silly strategy. Showing that we all believe something on faith is enough to allow the presup to believe whatever he wants without presenting evidence (unless the opponent presents some criteria that rule out belief in God as an axiomatic belief).

 

[Aupmanyav]

George's faith in doctors was good because the kid lived longer than expected.

My younger brother had fever and we went to a doctor. He prescribed barbiturates, causing my brother to be groggy for a week. We were in Delhi. My father, who was a doctor, was in Rajasthan 500 kms away. We got so worried that we called father to Delhi. One look at the prescription and he knew what the problem was. The medicines were stopped and my brother got well.

Some doctors go to unusual lengths to make money. That is why a 'second opinion' is important, particularly in India, where one does not generally sue a doctor and go to courts. Private practitioners also prescribe costly medicines or tests to earn commissions, where they may not have been really necessary.

Birth by cesarean operation is another point. Private doctors advise that for most births among the well-to-do people, where they may not have been really necessary.

"At 28.1%, the share of women delivering through a C-section has risen by nearly 25 percentage points in two decades from as low as 3.2% in 1995-96. The survey findings also show that it is the private sector hospitals that are largely responsible for the high rate of C-sections in India, as a result of which average Indians pays more for childbirth than they would have otherwise."
92% deliveries in hospitals, every third child born through a c-section

So, my faith in doctors is not absolute (though they are supposed to have taken an oath that they will do only what is in the best interest of the patient).

 

[AlexanderG]

Well, this idea of "virtuous circularity" is absurd. But the presup need not appeal to this silly strategy. To show that we all believe something on faith is enough to allow the presup to believe whatever he wants without presenting evidence (unless the opponent presents some criteria that rule out belief in God as an axiomatic belief).

Is the point of this thread to get atheists to acknowledge that we presuppose that our thoughts are patterned and coherent? And you want to call that faith? I mean, I guess I'm ok with that, but I don't think this fits well with the definitions of faith, especially not as it's used in a religious context. So I don't see much symmetry. And since every single person operates off this assumption no matter their worldview, it doesn't seem related to a particular theological stance more or less than any other.

Like @Meow Mix said, religious presuppositions seem to unnecessarily and unjustifiably add onto the core set of presuppositions that every single person shares. There's an argument to be made that they fall into a separate category with a weaker basis.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is a pity there isn't a "Great!" button. haha

I think (whether intentionally or not) this is why presup theists usually get painted into corners where they try to shoehorn the incorrigible presups into theism: like the TAGs where they argue God is necessary for the incorrigible stuff like cognitive faculties working or for logic. It just doesn't work though because any ol' person can demonstrate their incorrigibility without invoking a God, so we can still LaPlace them: "I have no need of that hypothesis."

All the TAGs fail when we invoke the aseity-sovereignty paradox anyway and demonstrate that logic is transcendental to God, should one exist; so God can't be invoked as its foundation.

 

[F1fan]

Sure, and the rational argument you're making now is an inductive one, and inductive arguments are still part of the reasoning process. So, the belief that we can trust doctors is justified by reason.

Not really. A lot of this we learn passively through life experience.

We humans value our lives.
Doctors have become an occupation because they have expertise that helps extend our lives.
When doctors succeed in helping people survive illness we recognize this as good and useful.

Now all this is built on meanings we humans have evolved and decided are true and valuable. Much of this complex meaning exists because we have a complex set of world languages that help us create and communicate meaning. Much of this is the experiences we have, with meanings we adopt, and we justify it in a non-rational way. Do any of us have to think all this through is well defined abstractions and make sober and deliberate choices based on well thought out reasons? Do we really need to ponder whether we want to go to a dentist with good reputation versus one with loads of complaints about his sloppy, painful work?

We have a sort of operating software that already has decided we want good doctors who are successful. If you have cancer do you really need to consider whether you prefer going tenth clinic that has the worst survival rate in the nation?

All of this might be sound thinking, reasoned conclusions. But we don't have to make deliberate judgments all the time. We already know what we prefer and expect.

The counter question is: why would we distrust doctors as a category? What presupposition drives that suspicion?

The question now is how you justify reason itself.The problem is (per Agrippa's trilemma), you can't do it since to justify the belief in the reliability of reason, you have to present a rational argument, i.e., to use reason to justify reason. That's circular.

The alternative won't work for us. We are trapped by having to function as human beings. Reason is a tool like a hammer and has utility to reach some goal. How do we justify the hammer? Well when it drives the nail and a goal is resolved then it's justified, because the alternative won't work for us.

Reason is reliable, but it's not perfect. Those with flexible minds are open to readjustment to a poor choice. The dilemma of saying we have "faith in reason" could present a circumstance where we can't admit error.

The question is how do you know your cognitive process of reason is reliable.

Who says my skill at reasoning is very good, right? It is a skill that is subject to improvement. We aren't talking about mixing sodium and chloride and we always get table salt. I know my reason isn't reliable if I keep making bad choices. How do I know they are bad choices, etc? We are talking about a fluid process. Sometimes we have good facts and data and have a clear path to a reliable conclusion. Other times we have insufficient evidence nut still make a judgment.

You're the one who will judge it ultimately. Are you going to use reason (for example, the scientific method) to justify this belief?

I don't know, will I be drunk?

 

[Magical Wand]

All the TAGs fail when we invoke the aseity-sovereignty paradox anyway and demonstrate that logic is transcendental to God, should one exist; so God can't be invoked as its foundation.

I'm interested in this paradox. Would you recommend some book or article where I can read about it? Thanks.

 

[F1fan]

My younger brother had fever and we went to a doctor. He prescribed barbiturates, causing my brother to be groggy for a week. We were in Delhi. My father, who was a doctor, was in Rajasthan 500 kms away. We got so worried that we called father to Delhi. One look at the prescription and he knew what the problem was. The medicines were stopped and my brother got well.

Some doctors go to unusual lengths to make money. That is why a 'second opinion' is important, particularly in India, where one does not generally sue a doctor and go to courts. Private practitioners also prescribe costly medicines or tests to earn commissions, which may not be really necessary.

Birth by cesarean operation is another point. Private doctors advise that for most births among the well-to-do people, where may have been any need for it.

"At 28.1%, the share of women delivering through a C-section has risen by nearly 25 percentage points in two decades from as low as 3.2% in 1995-96. The survey findings also show that it is the private sector hospitals that are largely responsible for the high rate of C-sections in India, as a result of which average Indians pays more for childbirth than they would have otherwise."
92% deliveries in hospitals, every third child born through a c-section

So, my faith in doctors is not absolute (though they are supposed to have taken an oath that they will do only what is in the best interest of the patient).

Right. Great points. In a previous post I noted that reasoning (or the humans doing it) isn't perfect. So many variables at play.

 

[Magical Wand]

We have a sort of operating software that already has decided we want good doctors who are successful. .... All of this might be sound thinking, reasoned conclusions. But we don't have to make deliberate judgments all the time. We already know what we prefer and expect.

I'm happy to grant that. So why do you trust your unconscious operating software -- that is, your reasoning process that doesn't work through the conscious use of abstract concepts such as induction and abduction?

The alternative won't work for us. We are trapped by having to function as human beings. Reason is a tool like a hammer and has utility to reach some goal. How do we justify the hammer? Well when it drives the nail and a goal is resolved then it's justified, because the alternative won't work for us.

And how do you know reason works like the hammer works? Have you used reason to determine that? Isn't that circular reasoning? In the case of the hammer, you're using your reasoning faculty as well as the data received through your senses to determine the hammer works. That's not circular. However, to determine reason itself works, you can't use an additional and independent faculty; the only faculty you have to ultimately adjudicate truth from falsity is reason. But you can't use reason in this case since that would be circular.

Who says my skill at reasoning is very good, right? It is a skill that is subject to improvement. We aren't talking about mixing sodium and chloride and we always get table salt. I know my reason isn't reliable if I keep making bad choices. How do I know they are bad choices, etc? We are talking about a fluid process. Sometimes we have good facts and data and have a clear path to a reliable conclusion. Other times we have insufficient evidence nut still make a judgment.

Sure, but your reasoning process is reliable enough to detect and fix its imperfections, is it not? And how did you figure that out (that is, these imperfections)? Have you used reason?

 

[Magical Wand]

Is the point of this thread to get atheists to acknowledge that we presuppose that our thoughts are patterned and coherent? And you want to call that faith?

No, Alex. I'm interested in the responses you atheists have to the challenge presented by presups.

I mean, I guess I'm ok with that, but I don't think this fits well with the definitions of faith, especially not as it's used in a religious context. So I don't see much symmetry. And since every single person operates off this assumption no matter their worldview, it doesn't seem related to a particular theological stance more or less than any other.

It is certainly true that many people try to define faith differently. I've heard evidentialist apologists saying faith means belief based on evidence. Both fideists and evidentialists can present Biblical passages to support their positions (but that's because the passages are very ambiguous and can be interpreted differently). And when I asked some believers for a reason, they claimed to have had a mystical experience or "seen God working in my life." But the fact is that some will reply they need no reason to believe.

Like Meow Mix said, religious presuppositions seem to unnecessarily and unjustifiably add onto the core set of presuppositions that every single person shares. There's an argument to be made that they fall into a separate category with a weaker basis.

Yeah, I agree with her. She made a really good point.

 

[F1fan]

I'm happy to grant that. So why do you trust your operating software -- which also reasons unconsciously, that is, not through the conscious use of abstract concepts such as induction and abduction?

Right. The dilemma is that we are not consciously aware of what goes on in our subconscious. Studies show that many of our decisions process in our subconscious, which then gets projected into the conscious mind and we think we made the decision deliberately and consciously, like when we stop at a red light.

And how do you know reason works like the hammer?

Because I routinely nail Christians to their crosses with it.

Have you used reason to determine that? Isn't that circular reasoning?

No, reason has an excellent set of rules. If we have well defined elements to the issues being considered we can acknowledge reasoning being effective as a method of resolving true versus false meanings. It's like the scientific method aims to control variables and eliminate assumptions. If a person is successful at these things then the experiment is by definition accurate.

In the case of the hammer, you're using your reasoning as well as the data received through your senses to determine the hammer works. That's not circular. However, to determine reason itself works, you can't use reason for that would be circular.

Not when we know the objective of using reason to resolve a question. We know what hammers can do. We know what reasoning can do. We have objectives for both. We can observe either one work for the intended purposes we set, yes?

Sure, but your reasoning process is reliable enough to detect and fix its imperfections, is it not? And how did you figure that out? Have you used reason?

Trial and error. Or others with better skill kick my *** in debate and i realize my error. Much of reasoning is just following the rules. This is realized by the results, and if I fail at my objective.

 

[Clara Tea]

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).

I saw a star by a crescent moon, and I realized that it could not be in the black area of the moon (the non-crescent part) because that would block any star.

But, unless I could see an outline of the moon, or somehow know that the moon is round, I would have to trust my faith that the moon is round (not crescent).

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm interested in this paradox. Would you recommend some book or article where I can read about it? Thanks.

There's none better than Plantinga himself, whom I believe coined it. You want "Does God Have A Nature?" (by Alvin Plantinga, of course).

I can also give you the gyst of it if you'd like.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I do, because I clearly understand the limits. Science never goes beyond what it knows.

If “science” didn’t go beyond what it knows, it would never advance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science has hypotheses and works on that vigorously, but it does not declare that as God's own truth as the theists do.

 

[viole]

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).

At the end of the day, everybody believes in something without evidence. I, for instance, believe there is life on other planets, somewhere.

However, I would not call it faith. Saying that I have faith in life on other planets sounds totally silly. So, I think that identifying faith with everything that has no direct evidence is a trick religious people use to bring us down to their level, and claim a draw, independently of the arguments used in the discussion. When they say atheism is also a faith, or even a religion, they sound like: "I know I believe in strange stuff, but you are not better than me. Draw?".

Ciao

- viole

 

[QuestioningMind]

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).

I try not to believe anything without sound justification. If I discover that I am believing something without sound justification then I stop believing it until it can be soundly justified. A claim that can't be soundly justified with verifiable evidence doesn't warrant my belief. Since you can believe absolutely anything without sound justification, faith is absolutely useless, if your goal is to determine what is objectively true.

And sound justification and reason are pretty much synonymous. Can you have sound justification without reason? Can something unreasonable be soundly justified? You may as well be saying that faith is belief without reason.

 

[firedragon]

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).

You said Faith is "belief without sound justifications". Sound according to who? And what is your definition of "sound"? Please explain if you can.

 

[blü 2]

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).

I have three assumptions ─ and they're assumptions because I can't demonstrate their correctness without first assuming they're already correct:

that a world exists external to me,
that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, and
(relevant to your remarks above) that reason is a valid tool.​

Note that everyone who posts here demonstrates by doing so that they agree with the first two, and let's hope they also agree with the third. On that basis we have a common ground on which we all converse.

The justification for all three is that they work. If they cease to work, it may be necessary to revisit them.

On the basis of those three, we can reason from objective evidence.

People who believe that God has objective existence, is not just conceptual / imaginary, don't do that. There isn't even a definition of God appropriate to a being with objective existence such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

 

[Justanatheist]

Faith that hoped for but not seen.

As an atheist I have faith that Wales will win the next rugby world cup.

However I recognise that this is irrational and there is little if any evidence to back it up indeed there is huge evidence to the contrary. I recognise that I just really really want it to be true, but I would not bet my last tenner on it.

For me the issue is whether you recognise what you believe on faith and how you act on it.

 

[Meow Mix]

You said Faith is "belief without sound justifications". Sound according to who? And what is your definition of "sound"? Please explain if you can.

I mean this question is basically all of epistemology, or at least a good chunk of it.

I used to have a list of justifiers I could recall: memory, introspection, reason, observation… I don’t recall the full list anymore. But each bullet point would be an entire category of conversation unto itself.