God of Little Faith
by samuel davidson
Special thanks to Joby for helping me simplify the post.
Special thanks to Matt for the amendment.
Here’s an interesting comic a friend shared with me the other day:
I took multiple critical reasoning courses in college so things like this REALLY intrigue me! A few people with whom I’ve shared this comic strip have gotten offended. But to the conscious and critical mind, there is nothing inherently offensive here. In fact being offended oftentimes is simply a result of one’s world view being challenged. And that was the author’s point: to challenge previously held beliefs and preconceived notions.
Personally, I’ve been persuaded that such challenges– provided they’re sincerely contemplated and not categorically rejected– either strengthen my perspective or ultimately improve it. We can’t get any closer to a more complete knowledge of God without questioning and challenging what we already believe. So allow yourself to be challenged…
It’s astonishing how little critical thought occurs on a typical Sunday Morning; most sermons and Bible studies are aimed at reinforcing the same adages and axioms. By failing to encourage Christians to delve deeper into spiritual thought, the church seems content in fostering superficial faith based on conventional wisdom. But certainly God is hardly satisfied with the superficial.
1.) Does God have faith in anything? Quick answer, nope. “Faith,” as I understand it, is a belief without facts to affirm that belief. Faith cannot exist in the presence of certainty. Thus if God is infinite and omniscient, what use has God for faith?
But COULD God have faith? In other words, is God truly infinite (“can He create a rock so big he couldn’t carry it” kind of thing)? That is a brilliant and frequently argued idea. The answer is not as straightforward and I’ll answer it at the end of this blog. Skip to #3 now if you want to read it.
2.) Is God an atheist? No. The absence of faith does not automatically make one an atheist, and that’s the error committed in the above comic strip. Atheism in and of itself actually requires a considerable degree of faith. There is no real fact or evidence disproving the existence of God in some form, therefore the atheist’s outright denial of God’s existence is an article of faith. If God has no faith, he cannot be an atheist.
Nor is he agnostic for that matter. The doctrine of agnosticism is defined, at least in part, as an acceptance of uncertainty regarding the absolute truths of God’s existence or nature. While agnosticism requires no faith, it requires imperfect knowledge– and, in this case by definition, God’s omniscience negates uncertainty.
Ultimately the real question raised (although not addressed) by this comic strip is whether or not God is truly infinite and omniscient.
3.) THE BIG QUESTION: is God truly infinite and omniscient?
I need to establish this generic principle that can be found throughout nature and science: a thing or system of things cannot create another thing or system of things more complicated than itself. There are tons of examples for this and it’s seriously another blog within itself. I won’t go into too much detail. However, knowing this helps a little.
We live in a physical universe. Keeping the above principle in mind we can safely assume that God is either equally or more complex than the universe. The previous sentence suggests God created the universe. How he chose to do that is a mystery, however we can safely assume (given the law of thermodynamics) that He was involved since something cannot come from nothing (above principle).
Does God have limitations? Perhaps. I mean, he is either bound to the infinite (can do anything) or bound to the finite (can’t do everything). But here’s where things get weird, all these arguments assume a physical realm; a place bound by the laws of this universe. Is it possible the creator of something exists outside the creation?
Think of it this way. Lets say I make a game with specific rules on how the game is to function. I can interact with that game as I wish, but I myself am not bound to the rules of that game nor is my existence determined by the games existence. But when I do choose to influence the game play, I abide by my own rules. God is no different.
So can God create a rock heavy enough that he can’t pick it up? Well, that’s like multiplying a positive number with a negative number; you always get a negative no matter what you do. The question assumes God is bound by the physical world. The question itself “Begs the question” and is logically fallacious … it posses an inquiry with a predetermined assumption (God is bound to the physical laws of this universe) and outcome (he is limited in some way). The question is asking you to multiply 1 by -1 and try and prove it equals anything but -1.
Is it then impossible for God to have faith? I would argue no. If God chose to abide by human finiteness, he definitely could have the potential of faith. God does what he does and chooses what he chooses and many times it’s WAY beyond our finite brains. The reality of it is, God can both be finite and infinite simultaneously. Completely limited and limitless all at once just as I can participate in my created game and exist outside of it.
AMMENDMENT (Sep. 25, 2008)
After talking with a philosopher (Matt), he made a point about the above argument I deemed worthy of sharing:
#1 – While the above remains true, a simpler explanation is available
#2 – This also apply’s to “Can God be an atheist” but for the sake of reading time, I will not use it as an example. However, the explanation easily applies to this question for the same reasons listed below.
#3 – If a person asks “Can God make a rock so big…” then they have a poor understanding of the word Omnipotent and the rest of the argument falls apart.
Here’s how he broke it down for me. Omnipotent means all powerful, yes, but in reference to the possible. If it is possible, then an omnipotent being could do it. Omnipotnent does not reference mutually exclusive events (the impossible). Because the question is based on an assumed premise that God is omnipotent and then follows up with a mutually exclusive question, the argument is meaningless.
It’s like asking “Can God make a square a circle.” They are two mutually exclusive events. You cannot be at your computer and not at your computer simultaneously. Mutual exclusivity does not exist within our universe.
C.S. Lewis says it like this:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature fee will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can.’… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
Filed under: Observations | 6 Comments
Tags: atheism, atheist, christianity, faith, god, too much coffee man
“First, atheism is in itself a system based on faith. ”
A person who doesn’t believe in the existence of any gods is not the same thing as a person who believes that no gods exist.
Both people would be atheists, but you will find the vast majority of atheists are those of the first type — do not believe in the existence of any gods — rather than the second type — believing that no gods exist.
My definition of faith is slightly different than yours, but not all that different. It admits degrees of faith.
Mine is “faith is believing things to a degree of certainty which exceeds what is warranted by the evidence.”
The deist god is far less objectionable, than say, the Christian god, they they have about the same amount of supporting evidence — none that I can see. The deist god just has far less opposing evidence than the Christian god.
I think faith is unethical, because it involves lying to yourself about how certain you should be — it is inherently dishonest. Why can’t you just be as certain as the evidence warrants, and no more certain than that? Why this demand for faith — this demand to be excessively certain? Why is being excessively certain considered a virtue.
IF the atheist uses faith — and I would say he doesn’t, not in most cases — to arrive at his conclusion that belief in deities is not warranted, then at least the atheist recognizes faith for what it is — a dishonest grab for excessive certainty– rather than mistaking it for a virtue.
holy cow sam and joby,
good write up and very thought provoking. gnarly stuff to ponder.
i wish i could write like this. lol
Great post. I like this quote- “By failing to encourage Christians to delve deeper into spiritual thought, the church seems content in fostering superficial faith based on conventional wisdom.”
Relating to the whole faith thing, I find it relevant that the writer of Hebrews defines faith as “a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see” (Hb 11:1, Weymouth). When Jesus performed miraculous healing, He often pointed to the individual’s faith as a mechanism for their healing (Mk 5:34, Mk 10:52). This leads me to believe that these individuals were healed by their faith, by their acknowledgment of the infinitude of the game’s Architect.
Scaryreasoner,
You have some very interesting observations and it’s always good to hear the other side of the argument. Of course, without trying to make this a debate I would like to address some of your points.
1) “A person who doesn’t believe in the existence of any gods is not the same thing as a person who believes that no gods exist.”
While the premises to each tangent may differ, the end conclusion is the same: there is no “greater power”. It’s like saying “There are not oranges in that basket” vs. “there is no apple in that basket.” Both tangents are saying the exact same thing – “the basket contains no fruit.” Why this was important to mention, I’m not sure but I did want to clarify that regardless of why one is an atheist, the core belief is the same.
2) “The deist god is far less objectionable, than say, the Christian god, they they have about the same amount of supporting evidence — none that I can see.”
I would argue that just because you’ve never experienced something first hand (seen, touched, heard, tasted, or smelled) does not contribute to it’s reality or lack there of. I would also add that while there are many lacking “evidences” for both sides of the argument, both cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and thus both sides require faith.
3) “I think faith is unethical, because it involves lying to yourself about how certain you should be…”
I disagree with that statement on a very pragmatic level, however, seeing that atheism is based on faith; do you really want to make this claim? I use faith on a daily basis and find it to be a very human and natural part of life. I trust that when I sit down in a chair I’ve never sat in before, it won’t collapse. I base this on reasoning given my experience, regardless of the unseen “evidence” on the chairs stability. Faith is no different.
4) “Why this demand for faith — this demand to be excessively certain? Why is being excessively certain considered a virtue.”
Faith is not a demand of excessive certainty, but rather the recognition that things are uncertain.
ALSO, I did not make the claim faith is a virtue. Nor did I make the claim that excessive certainty is a virtue. Faith equating virtue is YOUR correlation. Not mine. And naturally, I disagree.
Faith has little to do with ethics, morality, virtue, or religion. While some may apply it within those contexts, it is simply the outcome of a reasoned argument. Similar to my having faith that the chair won’t collapse when I sit on it. The reasoning behind my conclusion with the chair was not ethical, moral, virtuous, or religious. It was simply the outcome of a reasoned argument.
5) “IF the atheist uses faith — and I would say he doesn’t, not in most cases — to arrive at his conclusion that belief in deities is not warranted, then at least the atheist recognizes faith for what it is — a dishonest grab for excessive certainty– rather than mistaking it for a virtue.”
If an atheist uses faith? We’ve been over this and I’m reasonably certain my argument stands on it’s own two feet. No need to repeat it here.
At least the atheist recognizes faith for what it is – a dishonest grab for excessive certainty? Again, your words … not mine. And assuming this is true, are you suggesting that you yourself are merely grasping at the air for a certainty you will never have? If so, you acknowledge the potential of a “greater power” and cannot be considered an atheist. If not, well, isn’t that a bit hypocritical / juxtaposed to your belief system? Either way, it doesn’t follow.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE:
Having read through some of your blogs, you seem to be very convinced that faith is a virtue. By definition alone, it is not one. By your definition of faith, it is not one. In fact, by no stretch of the reasonable imagination could it be misconstrued as one.
I suggest perhaps reconsidering your association between the two words. It is unwarranted and weakens your arguments. Also consider not associating “excessive certainty” with faith as they are juxtaposed ideas, and thus don’t aid your argument.
In no way am I trying to attack you as a person, just your arguments. In fact, I appreciate you taking the time to not only read the article but also being willing speak your mind. It shows conviction and like I said, it’s always good to hear the other side. Keeps you balanced. Thanks again.
Apologies if the formatting is wonky…
The blog commenting system is not the best for
discussion. Also, apologies for the long time to
reply. Again the blog system doesn’t provide the
best system of notifications of replies to those
(like me) who just stumble across a post, post a
reply and then… forget about it. (Found it again
by a google search, and some dumb luck, and realized
I needed to reply.)
> Scaryreasoner,
> You have some very interesting observations and it’s always good to hear the
> other side of the argument. Of course, without trying to make this a debate
> I would like to address some of your points.
> 1) “A person who doesn’t believe in the existence of any gods is not the
> same thing as a person who believes that no gods exist.”
> While the premises to each tangent may differ, the end conclusion is the
> same: there is no “greater power”. It’s like saying “There are not oranges
> in that basket” vs. “there is no apple in that basket.” Both tangents are
> saying the exact same thing – “the basket contains no fruit.” Why this was
> important to mention, I’m not sure but I did want to clarify that regardless
> of why one is an atheist, the core belief is the same.
Wow, you can’t see the difference? Think slightly harder than not at all.
Seriously. THINK! If you can’t see the difference, ask someone smarter than
you. I’m not kidding. If I claim I have an elephant in my pocket, and you
can’t prove I don’t, is it reasonable to believe that I might have an
elephant in my pocket? Is it reasonable to believe not me, but the ancient
writings of those who claim to know telepathically that I have an elephant
in my pocket?
> 2) “The deist god is far less objectionable, than say, the Christian god,
> they they have about the same amount of supporting evidence — none that I
> can see.”
> I would argue that just because you’ve never experienced something first
> hand (seen, touched, heard, tasted, or smelled) does not contribute to it’s
> reality or lack there of.
True, but, when the thing in question is defined such that it cannot be
tested, even in principle, in such a way that would distinguish it from
something which does not exist, I think I’m entitled to be skeptical.
For example, God can supposedly do anything (which is possible), correct?
So, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it is within this posited God’s
abiltiy to say, levitate a penny which rests in the palm of my hand for a
moment while I watch, or, for say, me to think of a number (I have one in
mind) which this all-powerful god must surely be able to know, and to
communicate to a third party (say, you) and then you can tell me the number.
If you can do that — or if the penny will levitate — I’ll believe. Very
simple. Yet this is “testing God,” and not permitted. Why? Because –
the most obvious reason — this made up God doesn’t exist. The point is,
this god is not distinguishable from something which does not exist.
Tell me a way to distinguish it from something which does not exist.
> I would also add that while there are many lacking “evidences” for both
> sides of the argument, both cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and
> thus both sides require faith.
Baloney. You, no doubt, do not believe that magical smurfs live beneath your
floorboards. It requires no faith to lack such a belief.
> 3) “I think faith is unethical, because it involves lying to yourself about
> how certain you should be…”
> I disagree with that statement on a very pragmatic level, however, seeing
> that atheism is based on faith; do you really want to make this claim? I use
> faith on a daily basis and find it to be a very human and natural part of
> life. I trust that when I sit down in a chair I’ve never sat in before, it
> won’t collapse. I base this on reasoning given my experience, regardless of
> the unseen “evidence” on the chairs stability. Faith is no different.
I disagree that atheism is based on faith.. There is no evidence for any
gods, in the same way as there is no evidence for any smurfs under your
floorboards. Lacking belief in gods requires EXACTLY as much
faith as your lack of belief in smurfs under your floorboards — which is to say, zero..
> 4) “Why this demand for faith — this demand to be excessively certain? Why
> is being excessively certain considered a virtue.”
> Faith is not a demand of excessive certainty, but rather the recognition
> that things are uncertain.
Baloney. If that were the case, the “faithful” would be synonymous with
“agnostics”. This is not the case. Faith is universally praised by religion
as a virtue. If you deny such, you are *very* unusual, and likely at odds
with the majority of those who share your religion.
> ALSO, I did not make the claim faith is a virtue. Nor did I make the claim
> that excessive certainty is a virtue. Faith equating virtue is YOUR
> correlation. Not mine. And naturally, I disagree.
Perhaps you don’t, but it’s made quite plain that faith is considered a
virtue, in say, the Bible, and the Koran. If you do not consider faith to bej
a virtue, that’s my mistake, and again it puts you at odds with nearly every
religious person on the planet..
> Faith has little to do with ethics, morality, virtue, or religion.
The entire concept of faith was invented by religoin, and arises only
in the context of religion, so it’s a stretch to say faith has little
to do with religion. It is promoted as a virtue by nearly every religion
(though I do not find it to be virtuous). I do agree that faith and
morality have little to do with one another. Likewise morality and
religion have little to do with one another.
> While some may apply it within those contexts, it is simply the outcome of a
> reasoned argument. Similar to my having faith that the chair won’t collapse
> when I sit on it.
This is not an example of faith. If faith is, as is my observation, being
excessively certain with respect to the available evidence, then the notion
that a chair won’t collapes is not an example of faith. Generally, chairs,
being designed ot hold one up, don’t collape. Moreover, if one observed a
chair to be especially rickety, or making creaking noises when sat upon, one
might view the chair rather skeptically, and sit upon it rather gingerly.
In other words the idea that a chair will hold one up is not held to a
degree of certainty which exceeds the available evidence — thus, no faith
is involved. Your example fails.
> The reasoning behind my conclusion with the chair was not ethical, moral,
> virtuous, or religious.
Nor was it faith.
> It was simply the outcome of a reasoned argument.
No kidding. No faith involved.
> 5) “IF the atheist uses faith — and I would say he doesn’t, not in most
> cases — to arrive at his conclusion that belief in deities is not warranted,
> then at least the atheist recognizes faith for what it is — a dishonest grab
> for excessive certainty– rather than mistaking it for a virtue.”
> If an atheist uses faith? We’ve been over this and I’m reasonably certain my
> argument stands on it’s own two feet. No need to repeat it here.
Your argument fails utterly. I did not say that the atheist does use faith,
only rhetorically, by a subjunctive clause that, *if* an atheist were to use
faith, that at least it was recognized as a failing. You haven’t shown the
atheist does use faith, or that you even are able to recognize faith when
it is used. Your chair example, for instance contain no faith, but you
tried to claim it did in order to bolster the case for faith by claiming
that it is reasonable. Unfortunately your argument for faith consists
of trying to conflate a non-faith-using example for a faith-using example.
> At least the atheist recognizes faith for what it is – a dishonest grab for
> excessive certainty?
> Again, your words … not mine. And assuming this is true, are you suggesting
> that you yourself are merely grasping at the air for a certainty you will
> never have? If so, you acknowledge the potential of a “greater power” and
> cannot be considered an atheist. If not, well, isn’t that a bit hypocritical
> / juxtaposed to your belief system? Either way, it doesn’t follow.
Uh, no. Again you fail to recognize a hypothetical — *if* the atheist
uses faith, as is often claimed. It has not been shown that atheism
requires faith, while it has been shown that those who subscribe to faith
are not even able to distinguish use of faith fron non-use of faith.
I didn’t say the atheist uses faith — only that he recognizes it for what
it is — dishonest.
> ON A PERSONAL NOTE:
> Having read through some of your blogs, you seem to be very convinced that faith is a virtue.
Not that it is a virtue, but that it is promoted as a virtue, and assumed to
be a virtue by those who promote it. I myself think it is an unethical
concept, the opposite of a virtue, which would be clear if you’d read my blog.
e.g: http://scaryreasoner.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/on-the-notion-of-faith/
> By definition alone, it is not one. By your definition of faith, it is not
> one. In fact, by no stretch of the reasonable imagination could it be
> misconstrued as one.
No kidding. Sorry if I managed to erroneously conclude that you thought faith
was a virtue. It is the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY opinion of theists that faith
is a virtue, so perhaps I assumed too much.
> I suggest perhaps reconsidering your association between the two words. It
> is unwarranted and weakens your arguments. Also consider not associating
> “excessive certainty” with faith as they are juxtaposed ideas, and thus
> don’t aid your argument.
No — as the word is used by those who perceive faith to be a virtue, faith IS
excessive certainty. How many times have you heard someone say, “you just
have to have faith,” when what they really mean is, “you just need to stop
thinking about it and just believe it.” This notion is EVERYWHERE, and is
simply endemic to religion, and this, there is no denying. You cannot, as a
native speaker of the English language familiar with the way faith is promoted
in the United State expect anyone to take you seriously if you disagree with
this. You can argue against it, but do not expect to be taken seriously.
Expect to be laughed at.
> In no way am I trying to attack you as a person, just your arguments. In
> fact, I appreciate you taking the time to not only read the article but also
> being willing speak your mind. It shows conviction and like I said, it’s
> always good to hear the other side. Keeps you balanced. Thanks again.
Good to hear back from you. Tried e-mailing you back in July to let you know we posted a response, but that’s ok. No worries about the formatting. I’m more interested in what you have to say then how it gets to me. Since it is clear you and I will never agree on this matter, let us end with this response. You’ve said what you’ve had to say and should anyone wish to further understand where you are coming from, I encourage the reader to explore your site: http://scaryreasoner.wordpress.com
1). “Wow, you can’t see the difference? Wow, you can’t see the difference? Think slightly harder than not at all. Seriously. THINK! If you can’t see the difference, ask someone smarter than you.”
As I explained in my original response, I do see a difference in premise, however the outcome is the same. I also do not appreciate you suggesting that I’m not thinking or doing my due diligence. Lets be civil. I’m certain that if you read through the original post and response you’ll see a great deal of thought process. Also, I have talked with people smarter than myself. My most recent discussion was with a philosophy student who is working toward a Masters (as noted in original post). You are not talking to an idiot and if you persist on making fallacious ad hominem remarks, you only hurt yourself. This blog was not intended to be a “blame game”, nor will I allow it to be. You pride yourself on reason. Let us then exercise it together, civilly.
2.1). “If I claim I have an elephant in my pocket, and you can’t prove I don’t, is it reasonable to believe that I might have an elephant in my pocket?”
I wish you used a better example as this argument is wrong on a couple levels. Firstly, its a rather ridiculous analogy. It’s kind of like saying “the universe began only moments ago pre-populated with EVERYTHING, including memories, relationships, history, life, etc.” Secondly, its obviously not reasonable to believe you have an elephant in your pocket … but that has nothing to do with my ability to prove it / disprove it, nor does a belief (reasonable or unreasonable) have any impact on the reality of a situation.
2.2). “Is it reasonable to believe not me, but the ancient writings of those who claim to know telepathically that I have an elephant in my pocket?”
“Ancient writings” explains that you were not born when the record was made and who ever made the original record was long been dead before you ever existed – a prophecy if you will. Given that, the origin of telepathy could not have been you. Therefore the sentence demands a third party be involved.
“Telepathically” implies by definition that a minimum of two people were involved, one of which was the origin of telepathy. If the origin was a person, and because people are imperfect, the possibility of error within the prophecy exists. Therefore, the potentially inaccurate prophecy makes the “ancient writings” questionable and unreliable (unless they’ve been proven already … which they haven’t been). If by “telepathically” you were implying God (or some other entity), I would say then that you have a poor understanding of the word and your argument becomes mute.
Also, given the definition of “ancient,” the record could not say that you “have an elephant in your pocket” but would need to say that you “WOULD have an elephant in your pocket.” This is insignificant in the context of our argument, but still worth noting. I would suggest gaining a clear understanding of the words you use, as they can make or break an argument.
3). “…when the thing in question is defined such that it cannot be tested, even in principle, in such a way that would distinguish it from something which does not exist, I think I’m entitled to be skeptical.”
Absolutely. Any given theory cannot be proven, only disproved. The existence of God cannot be proven. The non-existence of God also cannot be proven, thus making it a theory. Theories can only have supporting evidences. To support a theory you either need to test it through repeatable experiments (which neither of us can do) OR empirical observation (which we both can do). That said, you are absolutely entitled and obligated to be equally critical of both ideas.
4). “For example, God can supposedly do anything (which is possible), correct? So, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it is within this posited God’s abiltiy to say, levitate a penny which rests in the palm of my hand for a moment while I watch…”
To answer your above question: correct. Sadly, it is unreasonable to suppose that God would levitate a penny while you watch in the same way its unreasonable for me to think I can invite the president over for a cup of tea in the middle of the night. Possible? Perhaps. Likely? No.
But to address the more important issue, the reason you cannot test the existence of God is not because He does or doesn’t exist, but rather you cannot “experiment” with the theory (as explained in section 3). Atheism is the same way. We are no different here. Continually addressing this issue not only further exposes your own vulnerability, but it puts us on the same level. Given that you want your ideas to be superior, is that something you really want to do?
5). Your response to my claim that atheism demands faith – “Baloney. You, no doubt, do not believe that magical smurfs live beneath your floorboards. It requires no faith to lack such a belief.”
I’ll dismiss this comment as another poor understanding of “faith.” Also the smurf example is ridiculous, as I’m sure you are aware. There is no evidence for a smurf living in the floorboards. An atheist might attempt a parallel between your smurf example and God saying “in the same way there is no evidence for God” at which point I would dismiss that comment based on a lack of due diligence. It would be like me going to a scientist and saying “there’s no evidence for electromagnetic waves” just because I can’t see them. I would be laughed out of the building.
6). “Lacking belief in gods requires EXACTLY as much faith as your lack of belief in smurfs under your floorboards — which is to say, zero.”
You’re right, lacking belief of anything requires no faith. Unfortunately for you, you do not “lack belief.” Lacking belief implies a neutral state in which you have no reason to believe or disbelieve, ie. you’ve never encountered the issue and don’t have any knowledge of it. However, YOU have made a cognitive decision on which side you stand and therefore cannot claim “lacking belief.” You’ve encountered the issue, thought it through, and now BELIEVE that there is no God. Because you cannot prove that belief, it requires a degree of faith.
7). “If that were the case, the “faithful” would be synonymous with “agnostics”. This is not the case. Faith is universally praised by religion as a virtue. If you deny such, you are *very* unusual, and likely at odds with the majority of those who share your religion.”
Negating cultural influence, which further supports what I’m about to say, “faithful” is not the same as “faith” by definition. Agnosticism requires “faith” just like any other theory relating to God. Again, despite who claims what (or rather who you say claims what) virtue and faith are unique. This may be unusual for someone to say to you, but if you truly understood what you claim to know, you would find the statement inline with many belief systems (including my own). I appreciate your zeal, but am insulted you come to the table so empty handed.
8). “…it’s made quite plain that faith is considered a virtue, in say, the Bible, and the Koran.”
I’m getting the distinct impression that my words are falling on deaf ears and that I’m wasting my time, for had you studied the Bible and Koran as diligently as you spout off fatuous assertions, you would not be making such claims. I’m frustrated. I feel like you’re willfully trying to waste my time.
Neither the Bible nor the Koran make the claim that faith is a virtue. Again, that is yours comment and again, I disagree (for reasons explained earlier). Since you’ve demonstrated such a poor understanding of “religious persons” thus far, I don’t find your statement expressing my “at odds” explanation reputable. I think it is merely at odds with your understanding of religious persons.
9). “The entire concept of faith was invented by religoin, and arises only in the context of religion, so it’s a stretch to say faith has little to do with religion.”
This is a very interesting topic that you brought up and probably deserves its own blog entirely. The short of it is this: people come up with words to define and communicate ideas that are relevant to their daily life. While I’m not entirely certain when the word was conceived, its reasonable to assume that the person was “religious” as they probably believed in a God or many gods (given our historical findings on ancient civilizations). Aside from this speculative conception, it has little to do with faith by definition. Also, people may apply the word / concept within the realm of religion just as they may apply it outside the realm of religion. In the same way that we do not consider the Brandenburg concertos conceived by J.C. Bach (devout catholic) inherently religious music, the word “faith” should not be considered an inherently religious word.
10). “Likewise morality and religion have little to do with one another.”
Totally agree! A non-religious person can be just as moral as a religious one. They are unique just like virtue, faith, and religion are unique from each other.
11). “…the idea that a chair will hold one up is not held to a degree of certainty which exceeds the available evidence — thus, no faith is involved. Your example fails.”
If I shared your misunderstanding of “faith”, I would probably agree with you. But again, you have a poor understanding of what the word. Also, you mentioned how if a chair was rickety, you would sit gingerly. Of course you would… but you still chose to sit on it because you BELIEVED it would hold your weight despite their being certain evidence of such; you had faith it would not collapse while recognizing that indeed it may (failure to be excessively certain). My example stands. The rebuttal fails. This merely reflects your misunderstanding of the word “faith.”
12). Your response to the outcome of a reasoned argument –“No kidding. No faith involved.”
While I agree that faith and reasoning are unique, they are not mutually exclusive which makes this point … pointless.
13). “Your argument fails utterly. I did not say that the atheist does use faith,
only rhetorically, by a subjunctive clause that, *if* an atheist were to use
faith, that at least it was recognized as a failing. You haven’t shown the
atheist does use faith, or that you even are able to recognize faith when
it is used. Your chair example, for instance contain no faith, but you
tried to claim it did in order to bolster the case for faith by claiming
that it is reasonable.”
It seems you and I will never see eye to eye. To your credit, you did have the “if” clause which is why earlier (both in this response and the previous) I outlined how exactly the atheist incorporates faith, thereby negating the “if” clause. I’m dumbfounded with statements like “at least the atheist would recognize it for what it is…” when the Atheist within the context of this argument can’t even recognize the very clear fact that indeed he is incorporating faith into his belief system. Now perhaps a more reasonable Atheist who was able to understand such a fact would also understand that faith is not excessively certain (as explained earlier). The chair example stands for reasons outlined in section 11 of this response.
14). “Again you fail to recognize a hypothetical — *if* the atheist uses faith, as is often claimed. It has not been shown that atheism requires faith, while it has been shown that those who subscribe to faith are not even able to distinguish use of faith fron non-use of faith.”
For questions about the “if” clause, see section 13. For questions about faith, see sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this response as well as sections 2, 4, and 5 of the previous response made on July 6th. If you’ve read the previous sections, you’ll understand when I say that your claim about “faith subscribers” is grossly inaccurate. If that claim was true (given the above listed sections) you would also fall into that category. In fact, if the above statement was true (which it is not), you reflect it remarkably.
15). “Not that it is a virtue, but that it is promoted as a virtue, and assumed to be a virtue by those who promote it. I myself think it is an unethical concept, the opposite of a virtue, which would be clear if you’d read my blog.”
In regards to my misunderstanding of your correlation between faith being a virtue and you finding faith being promoted as a virtue – fair enough and I apologize. You have many postings and I did not read ALL of them. Never the less, I have yet to encounter or see evidence of a religion that promotes faith as a virtue. Promoting it? Sure. Promoting it as a reality? Sure. As a virtue? I have yet to see it. AND even if someone were to promote it as a virtue (Theist or Atheist), they would be wrong for reasons outlined at the end of section 5 (previous response) after mistakenly accusing you of equating faith with virtue.
16). “It is the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY opinion of theists that faith is a virtue, so perhaps I assumed too much.”
Show me. You probably already recognize that this concept is not in the Bible (my origin of belief in God) so connect me with a modern authority on the subject. You’ve done your research otherwise you wouldn’t be making such a claim (right?) so show me what you’ve found so we can be on the same page.
17). “No — as the word is used by those who perceive faith to be a virtue, faith IS
excessive certainty.”
But it’s not. If someone had a poor enough understanding of faith to misconstrue faith as a virtue, I could see where their warped perspective could potentially lead them to believe that faith is excessive certainty. To think faith is excessive certainty is to either be negligent or misunderstand what faith is. I know you’re not negligent, so we’ll assume then the meaning escapes you.
18). “How many times have you heard someone say, ‘you just have to have faith,’ when what they really mean is, ‘you just need to stop thinking about it and just believe it.’ This notion is EVERYWHERE, and is simply endemic to religion, and this, there is no denying.”
I agree 100%. The people who say this (with said intent) are much like you in that they have a poor understanding of the word faith. It’s also a gross misunderstanding of God and how He works. Truly an endemic to any belief system.
19). IN CLOSING
I do not see us further discussing this here: we’ll end up just going in circles. Mutually passionate I suppose. If you’d like to discuss this further, indicate so in your brief response to section 16 of this response and we’ll establish another means of communication.
As a disclaimer, these types of debates take a great deal of my time and as such I am only willing to give 1 more correspondence. Both of us have spoken our minds and anything beyond 1 more correspondence will most likely render repetitive themes and thus a waste of our time. Aside from your response to section 16, I’ll personally delete future responses on this subject (from anyone on either side). Although we encourage genuine and brief discussions on controversial issues, this blog was not created for debate and will be moderated as such.
If anyone would like to gain a greater understanding of Atheism or Scaryreasoner, I encourage the research. You can find many of his thoughts here: http://scaryreasoner.wordpress.com
BadFish collectively encourages the understanding and knowledge of cultures, ideas, and belief systems different than your own as it will bread understanding of the world around us. This does not mean you have to agree or accept everything you learn. We just encourage the understanding and learning process.