Atheism is based on faith

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Counter-apologetics)
m (Rearrange link sections)
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
==Apologetics==
 
==Apologetics==
  
[[Let Us Reason Ministries]] offers this expression of the argument:[http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo7.htm]
+
[[Let Us Reason Ministries]] offers this expression of the argument<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo7.htm</ref>:
  
 
:"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."
 
:"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."
 
Theists treat belief in their particular God as a default belief, and they will often back this up with some variation of the [[argument from design]]. However, the definition of "Atheist" in the argument above is a [[straw man]]: An atheist is one who lacks positive belief in God, not one who claims to know absolutely that God does not exist. (The word "atheist" comes from the Greek "a-," meaning "without," and "theos," meaning "God.") To claim that God exists, compelling evidence must be put forward in support of that claim. The assertion that the existence of God has not been absolutely disproved is insufficient.
 
 
Moreover, while a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to know 100% for certain that no god exists, he doesn't need said knowledge to disbelieve in a specific god's existence.  For example, if the god is defined well enough that one can examine the definition for logical fallacies, one may do so.  If the god is not logically consistent then one is justified in their disbelief, even if they don't know 100% for sure that the god doesn't exist.
 
  
 
==Counter-apologetics==
 
==Counter-apologetics==
  
*The use of the word "faith" is an attempt to mislead based on the [[equivocation]] fallacy.  As the article on [[faith]] mentions, the two primary meanings of the word are:
+
* The definition of "Atheist" in the argument above is an overly broad [[straw man]]: an atheist is one who either [[weak atheism|lacks positive belief in a god]] or who [[strong atheism|believes that no gods exist]], not one who claims to know absolutely that no gods exist (see [[Atheist vs. agnostic]]).
# Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
+
# Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
+
  
*One can reasonably claim that atheism is based on "faith" using the first definition. However, the way this claim is often made implies that the second definition is being used, which is incorrect.
+
* While a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to be [[absolute certainty|absolutely certain]] that no gods exist, such knowledge is not required for ''disbelief''. And, in fact, individual theists disbelieve all kinds of claims (that various [[mythical beings]] exist, or that Earth is being regularly visited by aliens from space) without having complete knowledge even of the relevant subject areas.
  
*Since theists make a positive claim which is extraordinary in nature, the [[burden of proof]] is on the theist to prove that there is a God. Most theists do not "believe in" [[leprechaun]]s, yet they would not consider a request to prove the non-existence of leprechauns to be reasonable.  There is no reason why anyone should believe in leprechauns or God without positive [[evidence]].
+
* The use of the word "faith" is often an attempt to mislead based on the [[equivocation]] fallacy. As the article on [[faith]] discusses, the two primary meanings of the word are: (1) ''confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing''; and (2) ''belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'' One may reasonably claim that certain forms of atheism are based on "faith" using the first definition. However, the way this claim is often made implies that the second definition is being used, which is usually incorrect.
  
*There is [[evidentiary argument|strong evidence for atheism]]. There is no evidence for theism. We require [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence|strong evidence for theism]]. We require no evidence for atheism. The case for atheism exceeds the required amount of evidence. The case for theism falls staggeringly short.
+
* Disbelief based on lack of evidence does not require faith. In fact, disbelief does not require evidence of any kind. Someone who has never heard of the concept of "gods" would not believe in them. Under the broader definition of atheism, they would be an atheist and yet not have faith that no gods exist. Similarly, someone who has been given evidence and simply finds it lacking (the classic narrower definition of ''atheist'') would also not be relying on faith for their lack of belief.
  
The "evidence" for atheism is just as subjective as the "evidence" for a god. One cannot assert the absence of god based on subjective evidence, just as one cannot assert the existence of god based on subjective evidence.  
+
* Actually, it is quite possible to obtain evidence discouraging belief in the existence of specific gods (i.e., "evidence-based atheism"). For example, if the god is defined sufficiently well, one may examine the definition for logical contradications. If the god is [[Omnipotence paradox|not logically consistent]], then disbelief is justified. If a god is invoked to explain a certain phenomenon, then that explanation can be compared to the best scientific explanation of the same phenomenon. If [[science]] leads to a better explanation or a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved, then [[Occam's Razor|why is belief in the god necessary]]?
  
*It is laughable to equate the nonacceptance due to a [[Evidentiary argument|complete lack of evidence for something and good reasons to suppose otherwise]] to the leap needed to believe such a thing.
+
* The argument equates non-belief due to a [[Evidentiary argument|complete lack of evidence for something and good reasons to suppose otherwise]] to the (literal) leap of faith needed to believe such a thing.
  
*Theists commonly consider faith to be a virtue. It seems odd, then, that they would criticize atheism for being based on faith. Moreover, the argument implies that the more faith a proposition needs the less likely it is to be true, a claim many counter-apologists welcome considering the evidence.
+
* Theists tend to treat belief in their particular god as the default position, and they will often back this up with some variation of the [[argument from design]]. But since theists make a positive claim of their god's existence, they have the [[burden of proof]]. In fact, their claim is [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence|quite extraordinary]] (e.g., a being that can create whole universes), so their burden of proof is all the greater for that.
  
*In addition, asserting that atheists claim to "know" that there is no God is based on a misunderstanding of the word atheist. See the article on [[atheist vs. agnostic]].
+
* There is often an unspoken premise in this kind of argument that being an atheist is dangerous and therefore should not be entered into lightly. This is a classic [[appeal to emotion]]. (Not to mention the ironic implication that faith might not be a good enough reason to disbelieve something. If that's true, then why should it be a good reason to ''believe'' something?)
  
*Further, no legal system on earth requires absolute certainty for the determination of cases. In England, for example, a criminal case must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' - or in the modern formulation, "so that you (the juror) are sure"; civil cases need only be proved 'on balance of probabilities'. If the level of proof required by Let Us Reason Ministries in the quote above were required, hardly a judge or jury could reach a decision in a legal dispute.
+
* Theists commonly consider faith to be a virtue. It seems odd, then, that they would criticize atheism for being based on faith. Moreover, the argument implies that the more faith a proposition needs, the less one should accept it as true, a position that many counter-apologists would welcome.
  
*Theists often [[backslide]] and have trouble maintaining faith in their religion. [[Atheist]]s occasionally convert to theism, but do not tend to slip into various god-beliefs due to ''the strain'' required to maintain no belief in any god. If atheist were a faith group they should share the difficulties the religious have in maintaining their faith.
+
* [[Tu quoque]]! This argument attempts to defend religious faith claims by claiming that the atheist position falls into the same category. It also often serves as a [[non sequitur]], and tends to derail the argument from focusing on the lack of evidence to support religious faith.
  
* [[Tu quoque]]! This argument exists to defend religious faith claims by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for religious faith. Beyond shifting the [[burden of proof]] the argument serves as a [[non-sequitur]]
+
* Theists often [[backslide]] and have trouble maintaining faith in their god. Atheists occasionally convert to theism, but do not tend to slip into various god-beliefs due to the "strain" required to maintain no belief in any gods. If atheists were a faith group, they should share the same difficulties the religious have in maintaining their faith.
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 
* [[Atheism is a religion]]
 
* [[Atheism is a religion]]
 +
 +
==References==
 +
<references/>
  
 
==External link==
 
==External link==

Revision as of 13:37, 9 March 2012

Apologists often claim that atheism is based on faith — that is, not believing in a god requires just as much faith as belief does, if not more. Norman Geisler expressed this argument in the title of his book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.

Contents

Apologetics

Let Us Reason Ministries offers this expression of the argument[1]:

"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."

Counter-apologetics

  • While a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to be absolutely certain that no gods exist, such knowledge is not required for disbelief. And, in fact, individual theists disbelieve all kinds of claims (that various mythical beings exist, or that Earth is being regularly visited by aliens from space) without having complete knowledge even of the relevant subject areas.
  • The use of the word "faith" is often an attempt to mislead based on the equivocation fallacy. As the article on faith discusses, the two primary meanings of the word are: (1) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; and (2) belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. One may reasonably claim that certain forms of atheism are based on "faith" using the first definition. However, the way this claim is often made implies that the second definition is being used, which is usually incorrect.
  • Disbelief based on lack of evidence does not require faith. In fact, disbelief does not require evidence of any kind. Someone who has never heard of the concept of "gods" would not believe in them. Under the broader definition of atheism, they would be an atheist and yet not have faith that no gods exist. Similarly, someone who has been given evidence and simply finds it lacking (the classic narrower definition of atheist) would also not be relying on faith for their lack of belief.
  • Actually, it is quite possible to obtain evidence discouraging belief in the existence of specific gods (i.e., "evidence-based atheism"). For example, if the god is defined sufficiently well, one may examine the definition for logical contradications. If the god is not logically consistent, then disbelief is justified. If a god is invoked to explain a certain phenomenon, then that explanation can be compared to the best scientific explanation of the same phenomenon. If science leads to a better explanation or a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved, then why is belief in the god necessary?
  • Theists tend to treat belief in their particular god as the default position, and they will often back this up with some variation of the argument from design. But since theists make a positive claim of their god's existence, they have the burden of proof. In fact, their claim is quite extraordinary (e.g., a being that can create whole universes), so their burden of proof is all the greater for that.
  • There is often an unspoken premise in this kind of argument that being an atheist is dangerous and therefore should not be entered into lightly. This is a classic appeal to emotion. (Not to mention the ironic implication that faith might not be a good enough reason to disbelieve something. If that's true, then why should it be a good reason to believe something?)
  • Theists commonly consider faith to be a virtue. It seems odd, then, that they would criticize atheism for being based on faith. Moreover, the argument implies that the more faith a proposition needs, the less one should accept it as true, a position that many counter-apologists would welcome.
  • Tu quoque! This argument attempts to defend religious faith claims by claiming that the atheist position falls into the same category. It also often serves as a non sequitur, and tends to derail the argument from focusing on the lack of evidence to support religious faith.
  • Theists often backslide and have trouble maintaining faith in their god. Atheists occasionally convert to theism, but do not tend to slip into various god-beliefs due to the "strain" required to maintain no belief in any gods. If atheists were a faith group, they should share the same difficulties the religious have in maintaining their faith.

See also

References

  1. http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo7.htm

External link


v · d Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics
Personal   Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith? · Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs? · What are your qualifications? · Atheists believe in nothing · You are a communist · Why do atheists inspire such hatred? · That's not my God
Religious   That's not in my Bible · They're not true Christians · You just want to sin · Atheists know there is a God · It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe · God doesn't believe in atheists · Science is a faith · Atheism is a religion · Atheists worship materialism · Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays · Atheism is based on faith
Science and logic   You can't prove God doesn't exist · Science can't touch god · God can't be defined · So you think we came from nothing / pondsoup / monkeys? · If God didn't create everything, who did? · That might be true for you, but its not true for me · Religion is another way of knowing · God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones · Satan is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones · Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox