Do Atheists Have Faith?

[firedragon]

A justification is generally presented in the form of an argument. To say the argument is sound is to say the premises are true. For example,

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In order for this argument to be considered sound, the premises must be true. That would mean the argument can justify my belief that Socrates is mortal.

In that case, it seems like you have not engaged with that kind of argument in theology.

 

[Justanatheist]

Consequently, given that you can't justify the reliability of reason, you have to believe it without evidence/justification.

No, your conclusion does not reflect why reason as you defined it is used over faith for real world decisions, I can justify reason because it works most of the time and most importantly most people agree with me on that. It is the way the world works now that our understanding has grown. Once faith was given equal or more consideration than reason and you would do silly things like visit a faith healer if you were ill, now most people chose a doctor who uses reasoning to diagnose you. That is just one example of how the world choses to use reason rather than faith.

Why? You believe your reasoning faculties are reliable on the basis of faith, and yet you expect others to justify their faith-based beliefs?

No I have told you that you have not got to justify your beliefs depending on the situation, I do not care about your faith based beliefs I leave you to it, I think they are silly and do not agree with them, but have at it if you want them. However when your faith based beliefs challenge my and the worlds reasoned based beliefs and you cannot justify them I am going to ignore you. Tough but that is the way the world works now.

Really? So that's your justification for believing in the reliability of reason? Because we value reason over faith? That is no justification at all. The fact that we use it (and value it) doesn't mean we're justified in using it.

It is all the justification I and most people need, if a group of us are lost and I offer a way home based on my knowledge of the area or better still a map and you offer a way home based on your faith people will chose my reasoning over your faith and leave you sat there bleating that reason is based on faith just as much as faith is! That is the reality check, reason works most of the time, faith is a nice little idea but it rarely appears to work when actually tested. If you want to move a mountain reason says use TNT and an army of diggers.

 

[viole]

Well, but that's what it is. In philosophy, knowledge is standardly defined as Justified True Belief. If you have an unjustified belief, that's faith since you have no reason to conclude your belief has any connection to truth.

In any case, you said everybody believes in something without evidence. Does that mean it is okay (that is, rational) for Christians to believe in God without justification/evidence?

Well, that was actually my point. Faith is something different from believing in life outside earth. So, lack of evidence, does not put the two beliefs on the same level.

I would say that my belief is rationally justified by the sheer size of the universe, possibly infinite, and the fact that we have evidence of at least one planet with life in it.

on the other hand, faith, in its religious sense is, in my opinion, irrational. For starters, we have evidence of nature, while no evidence of God, and it would be therefore logically unwarranted to look for a god, when nature can explain itself well enough. It would be a violation of the principle of parsimony.

And even under the assumption of an existing God, there is no logical reason to be a Christian, a Muslim or whatever.

ciao

- viole

 

[F1fan]

There is a difference between "hope" and "faith" as I defined here, as philosopher Peter Boghossian pointed out in one of his books:

“Faith and hope are not synonyms. Sentences with these words also do not share the same linguistic structure and are semantically different—for example, one can say, “I hope it’s so,” and not, “I faith it’s so.” The term “faith,” as the faithful use it in religious contexts, needs to be disambiguated from words such as… “hope.” … “hope” [is] not [a] knowledge claim. One can hope for anything... This is not the same as claiming to know something. To hope for something admits there’s a possibility that what you want may not be realized. For example, if you hope your stock will rise tomorrow, you are not claiming to know your stock will rise; you want your stock to rise, but you recognize there’s a possibility it may not. Desire is not certainty but the wish for an outcome. Hope is not the same as faith. Hoping is not the same as knowing. If you hope something happened, you’re not claiming it did happen. When the faithful say, “Jesus walked on water,” they are not saying they hope Jesus walked on water, but rather are claiming Jesus actually did walk on water.“

This illustrates how "faith" can be a more arrogant and illusionary approach than hope is. As he describes here hope does have a certain humility and acceptance of reality where faith does not. Faith can be a trap that hurts the believer if and when the outcomes thought true aren't actually true. We can say faith lacks virtue since humility is a crucial virtue.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, but we're talking about reason here, and not ordinary stuff. While you can justify your trust in your wife, you can't do it in the case of reason, for in order to justify anything you have to use reason itself. So, to the question "Why do you trust reason?", you may reply, "Because reason worked in the past, that is, it is 'well based on actual experience'." See the problem? You're using reason to justify the belief that reason worked in the past. That's circular.

Sorry, but that made no sense. I didn't mention reason, but if you want to talk about that specifically, using reason is proven to work, proven by real-world data. So trusting in it is different from trusting in an imaginary being someone told you about.

EDIT: I just went back and re-read the OP. I didn't realize you were making more than one argument there. Seems odd to both ask about people having faith and ask about reason. Seems like you should tackle one at a time.

In that case, as I said, if you're talking about faith as just trust in something, then you have to define reason. Reason is just about thinking critically about things. It's a way of approaching things so that you minimize bias and maximize intellectual honesty. I have "faith in reason" insofar as it's part of the way you have to approach things to wade through the things that normally trip people up, because that's just how it works.

 

[John D. Brey]

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.

As you probably know, Popper showed the circular nature of reason much as you point out above. As a philosopher of the scientific-method (and an agnostic too) he debunked the idea that reason or rationalism are self-consistent means of arriving at a true conclusion. This, Popper determined, made "truth" unobtainable (since he reasoned there was no way to arrive at it since he assumes reason, rationalism, and empiricism are the only avenues available to arrive at "truth").

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

The atheist, or agnostic, clearly has faith in his empirical observations, and the reason and rational thought tied to those empirical observations. . . But this is where Popper's genius shown through the most, as was noted in the thread, become essay, Popper's "Systematic Observations."

What Popper shows, is that modern science can't be reduced to, nor elicited from, merely faith in empirical perceptions, nor even empirical perceptions allied with reason, since as he shows, empirical observations are themselves merely the genetic orthodoxy reified in the genetic design of the organs that serve up the empirical observation. Which is to say that all that reason and rationality have to work with are observations whose nature are prejudiced by how natural selection chose to design those organs.

Worse than that is the fact that the observations served up by the organs are experienced by means of "qualia," qualities like color, smell, taste, etc., that don't even exist anywhere except in the subjective collection of experience found inside a brain; they don't exist outside in the actual world. "Yellow," i.e., the quality experienced as "yellow," is merely an electromagnetic wavelength of light. There's nothing "yellow" about it. Qualia (subjective experiences) don't exist out there anywhere. Only in here; in our brains.

Therefore, faith in empirical observations, and the ideas formed by reason and rationality, empowered by empirical observations, is at its core, faith in whatever process determined that an electromagnetic wavelength should be experienced as the quality yellow.

If that process is evolutionary natural selection, then agnostic faith is faith in the process of evolutionary natural selection; which is presented as "survival of the fittest," which means the agnostic's faith is founded on, in, a tautology, since, as Popper admitted, and then had to retract because of the negativity he received for saying it, survival of the fittest is a tautology, since "fitness" is determined by "survival."

Where it's understood that all agnostic faith is founded on faith in evolutionary natural selection, and the concept of evolutionary natural selection is based on "survival of the fittest," which is a tautology, not only is agnostic faith irrationally derived from a misplaced faith in reason (which is unreasonable), but worse, it's grounded in a tautology.



John

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

At this point you pretty much ignored everything I said and just repeated your questions. Either you don't comprehend what I said, or are purposely ignoring it. Either way, I'm not going to repeat my answers.

 

[Magical Wand]

In that case, it seems like you have not engaged with that kind of argument in theology.

What kind of argument? Can you give an example?

 

[Magical Wand]

At this point you pretty much ignored everything I said and just repeated your questions. Either you don't comprehend what I said, or are purposely ignoring it. Either way, I'm not going to repeat my answers.

Thanks for your time, sir.

 

[firedragon]

What kind of argument? Can you give an example?

What are the arguments you have engaged with?

 

[Magical Wand]

What are the arguments you have engaged with?

You haven't answered my question. What arguments are you talking about? Can you give an example?

 

[F1fan]

As you probably know, Popper showed the circular nature of reason much as you point out above. As a philosopher of the scientific-method (and an agnostic too) he debunked the idea that reason or rationalism are self-consistent means of arriving at a true conclusion. This, Popper determined, made "truth" unobtainable (since he reasoned there was no way to arrive at it since he assumes reason, rationalism, and empiricism are the only avenues available to arrive at "truth").

I'm sure Popper realized there's a dead end to be critical of the very process he's using for criticism.

The atheist, or agnostic, clearly has faith in his empirical observations, and the reason and rational thought tied to those empirical observations. . . But this is where Popper's genius shown through the most, as was noted in the thread, become essay, Popper's "Systematic Observations."

What Popper shows, is that modern science can't be reduced to, nor elicited from, merely faith in empirical perceptions, nor even empirical perceptions allied with reason, since as he shows, empirical observations are themselves merely the genetic orthodoxy reified in the genetic design of the organs that serve up the empirical observation. Which is to say that all that reason and rationality have to work with are observations whose nature are prejudiced by how natural selection chose to design those organs.

'
The fortunate thing is that science has been able to engineer instruments to offset these prejudices. We humans can't see infrared light but we designed instruments that allow us to see it.

Worse than that is the fact that the observations served up by the organs are experienced by means of "qualia," qualities like color, smell, taste, etc., that don't even exist anywhere except in the subjective collection of experience found inside a brain; they don't exist outside in the actual world. "Yellow," i.e., the quality experienced as "yellow," is merely an electromagnetic wavelength of light. There's nothing "yellow" about it. Qualia (subjective experiences) don't exist out there anywhere. Only in here; in our brains.

Therefore, faith in empirical observations, and the ideas formed by reason and rationality, empowered by empirical observations, is at its core, faith in whatever process determined that an electromagnetic wavelength should be experienced as the quality yellow.

But unlike religious faith the faith in empirical observations can be useful in practical ways. We can sell yellow cars when a consumer wants a yellow car. Is it yellow anywhere else but the human brain? Not important to the guy making the sale, and happy customer.

 

[firedragon]

You haven't answered my question. What arguments are you talking about? Can you give an example?

Okay. The contingency argument for a necessary being. As an example, since you were talking about a philosophical argument.

 

[Meow Mix]

What I see in this thread are varying levels of technicality and different levels of familiarity with the technicalities of philosophy in epistemology and metaphysics.

Many responses aren't speaking towards the well-made case by the OP that you can't justify reason because you must already be adopting reason in order to attempt to do so: it puts the cart before the horse. But this framework of knowing how justification works, what putting the cart before the horse is, stuff like this may not be familiar to some. I don't know how to resolve this problem.

 

[John D. Brey]

What I see in this thread are varying levels of technicality and different levels of familiarity with the technicalities of philosophy in epistemology and metaphysics.

Many responses aren't speaking towards the well-made case by the OP that you can't justify reason because you must already be adopting reason in order to attempt to do so: it puts the cart before the horse. But this framework of knowing how justification works, what putting the cart before the horse is, stuff like this may not be familiar to some. I don't know how to resolve this problem.

Irrationalism is superior to uncritical rationalism . . .[but] there are other tenable attitudes, notably that of critical rationalism which recognizes the fact that the fundamental rationalist attitude results from an (at least tentative) act of faith -- from faith in reason.

Popper Selections, p. 35, 36.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

But unlike religious faith the faith in empirical observations can be useful in practical ways. We can sell yellow cars when a consumer wants a yellow car. Is it yellow anywhere else but the human brain? Not important to the guy making the sale, and happy customer.

Popper pointed out that empirical observations are lies. The sun is not the same size as the moon. And one revolves around the earth, while the earth revolves around the other. Nothing in naked empirical observations tells a person that the earth revolves around the sun, while the the moon revolves around the earth; or that the sun is umptine times larger than either the moon or the earth.

To the aboriginal mind, such issues are unimportant and thus not existent. Popper realized that it was not natural human thought, natural human observations, which led to the rise of the modern scientific world. He realized that it was mythological thought; thought based on unnatural intuitions, or intuitions that in and of themselves perceived a higher order than the natural observations had any use for, i.e., it was religious thought.

For instance, heliocentrism came from the religious inclination that that which provides light, heat, and thus life, should be central, the axis around which everything revolves, and not something subject to the bodies it empowers. The agnostic empiricists laughed at the thought that human prejudice should question a person's own lying eyes. But St. Paul said we live by faith, not by sight. And throughout history those who believe in the divinity of man have been showing that our lyin eyes can't be trusted to lead us out of the muck and mire of aboriginal naturalism.

Popper points out that Copernicus' first inclination toward heliocentrism came from religious myths and ancient religions that worshiped the sun as central to all life on earth. He (Popper) goes on to show that it's the ability of the human mind to hypothesize orderliness and metaphysical truism of a higher order than empirical observations require, or provide, that's the true genesis of the scientific-world.

. . . I share with the materialists or the physicalists not only the emphasis on material objects as the paradigms of reality, but also the evolutionary hypothesis. But our ways seem to part when evolution produces minds, and human languages. And they part even more widely when human minds produce stories, explanatory myths, tools and works of art and science.

Karl Popper, The Self and its Brain, p. 11.​

Harvard's Professor of evolutionary biology, Joseph Henrich, does Popper one better in his book published just last year, The WEIRDEST People in the World. He shows that the entire modern, Western, world, with all its gadgets and technology is the product of the Protestant Reformation; that Martin Luther and his theology are the true engine of the modern scientific world. He sets out to prove this thesis scientifically, with real, hard, data, and, to my mind, succeeds beyond belief.

Sir Karl Popper, and his friend Albert Einstein, suspected that Judeo/Christianity provided some seminal element required to achieve the science of the modern world (hell, Isaac Newton is the champion and he was a bible-toter through-and-through), and Einstein said as much. As agnostics, that wasn't an avenue they (Popper and Einstein) pursued too aggressively. On the other hand, Professor Joseph Henrich pursues precisely that.

Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives this authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for the existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. The highest principals of our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition.​

Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, p. 22, 23.​

John

 

[Magical Wand]

Okay. The contingency argument for a necessary being. As an example, since you were talking about a philosophical argument.

I am well acquainted with evidentialist/classical apologetics. However, here in this thread I'm only referring to theists (namely, some presuppositionalists) who define faith as belief without justification.

 

[Magical Wand]

What I see in this thread are varying levels of technicality and different levels of familiarity with the technicalities of philosophy in epistemology and metaphysics.

Many responses aren't speaking towards the well-made case by the OP that you can't justify reason because you must already be adopting reason in order to attempt to do so: it puts the cart before the horse. But this framework of knowing how justification works, what putting the cart before the horse is, stuff like this may not be familiar to some. I don't know how to resolve this problem.

Yeah, I tried to explain the issue in simple terms.

 

[Jim46]

Now, the question the presup would ask is simple: if you can believe X based on faith, then why can't he (regardless of his religion) accept whatever doctrine he wants based on faith?

My answer would be that he might be missing the point of what people are saying sometimes, when they criticize using faith as a reason for believing something; and that he is helping to divert attention from people using those beliefs to excuse and camouflage harmful attitudes and behavior, with disastrous consequences for multitudes of people.

 

[firedragon]

I'm well aware of evidentialist/classical apologetics. However, here in this thread I'm only referring to theists (namely, some presuppositionalists) who define faith as belief without justification.

Okay. Cheers.