In our discussions we often hear the cry, “The skeptic has as much faith as the Christian.” Or “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” Or “You have faith in science.” These are conflations of the word “faith.”
First of all, on a personal note, this seems a bit like the theist is thinking faith is a bad thing. As if they have been besmirched by the implication of having faith, and must equally tarnish the other person. Have we reverted back to our childhood playgrounds?
“You have elephant ears!”
“Oh, yeah? You have an elephant nose!”
“You believe by faith!”
“Oh yeah? Well, you believe by faith, too!”
The only thing missing is the “Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.”
More importantly, however—why would the Christian so lightly give away this precious commodity? Why would they flippantly treat faith as something one could easily obtain at the local store and the skeptic happened to drop some in their shopping bag?
Think of the strength within the Christian concept of Faith. It can heal. Matt. 8:10-12, 9:22. James 5:15. It forgives sins. Matt 9:2. It can move mountains. Matt. 17:20. It can throw the mountain into the sea. Matt. 21:21. It is the conduit for salvation. Eph. 2:8.
The famous faith chapter of Hebrews 11 lists such iconic Jewish heroes as Enoch. Noah. Abraham. Moses. David. Is this the company we keep when you declare we have the same “faith”? Do we, likewise, have the power to miraculously heal when you say we have “faith” in science?
When you say I have to have more faith to be an atheist, are you anticipating God will be saying, “Well done, you good and faithful servant”?
Of course not! What the Christian means by the term “faith” when referring to a skeptic is a determination based upon incomplete data. The Christian feels accused of making a determination about what their God is like, or what is inspired, or how God could be moral, or what God feels about this, or what God feels about that on incomplete data.
They have a series of books written in dead languages, and with mistakes introduced in copies. They have “gut feelings.” They have philosophistry and apologetics. Yet, in the end, the data is incomplete, and they must make a leap of determination. It is this “faith” the Christian is comparing to skeptics.
In the same way, our data is incomplete regarding natural abiogenesis. The same way the Christian has no data the Jewish leaders would have confronted the disciples about the resurrection of Jesus, we have no data as to the exact chemical nature of the earth at the time of abiogenesis occurred. We each must engage in some form of speculation.
It is here the concept of “faith” is being utilized.
Yet, if you think about it, we don’t have complete data on anything. We all must engage in some determination of conclusion without complete data. I presume the next minute will be much like this one. True, despite the fact there is not a cloud in the sky, it is possible an instantaneous typhoon will come about in the next 30 seconds, completely covering the sun.
Even though it is 77 degrees and August in Michigan, the temperature may suddenly drop, and it will be snowing by 3 p.m. this afternoon. All I can do is rely upon my past experience, my observation, information obtained from observing what others report, and come to the conclusion it will not be typhooning in the next minute. It will not be snowing this afternoon.
Obviously, there is a range of how much we can observe and then speculate. While I can be pretty accurate regarding the weather in the next minute, it is harder for the next week. Or next month. Or a year from now.
Simply using the term “faith” to mean a conclusion on incomplete data is not the same “faith” from one thing to another. It is very little “faith” to believe (due to the amount of data) the next minute of weather will be very similar to this minute. It takes a great deal more to believe we secretly landed on the moon in 1842, and have been keeping the knowledge of trans-warp engines from the ordinary people…
It is insufficient to claim the “faith” to believe one thing is the same “faith” to believe another—the observable data is different in each situation. Part of the confusion of this discussion is to treat “faith” as being all parts equal. It is not.
When I am told, “You have as much faith as I do” the first question that should be asked is “faith in…what?” How much data has been utilized to come to the conclusion? How much is available? And the most important question of all—if more data comes to light, are you willing to change your conclusion in order to explain the data?
One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion, is having it with someone who does not have all the data, yet will stick with their conclusion regardless of even the possibility there is new data out there. Look, I don’t expect you know Greek. I don’t expect you to know every possible argument, every available text, and all the data we have at this point in time. But if you don’t have it, will you recognize that the “faith” you have may be different than the “faith” others have who do have more data, and reached different conclusions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I just recently saw an interesting relevant quote:
ReplyDeleteTo say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask. - Geoff Mather
I have been arguing recently with a blogger who appears to get his entire knowledge of the world from right wing talk radio. When I told him that he should test what he hears against a variety of sources rather than simply swallowing everything he hears from Rush Limbaugh, he accused me of blindly accepting liberal sources.
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me how often I encounter arguments that amount to little more than "You're just as foolish as I am."
You make a good point that faith in God and faith in an airplane are different. I've seen that comparison beaten to death a few times. Might've even used that one myself (my apologies if I did). Sceptics don't easily believe in something they can't see. It's not faith in nothing but a passion for truth that is verifiable.
ReplyDeleteI think an atheist who is a seeker of the truth would always be urged on by the mystery of why and how we are here. That we exist is kind of like having an elf on your shoulder. I'd definitely want to find out where he came from.:-)
I think an atheist who is a seeker of the truth would always be urged on by the mystery of why and how we are here.
ReplyDeleteJim,
For anyone who seeks the truth, there are always more than enough unanswered questions to keep even the youngest seeker busy for the rest of his life. I am curious about how and why we are here, but I am equally curious about how we might live our lives in a way that makes the world as good a place as it can be for as many people as possible.
Agreed. How much we help others in proportion to our resources is the truest measure of our own worth.
ReplyDeleteDagoodS wrote,"One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion, is having it with someone who does not have all the data, yet will stick with their conclusion regardless of even the possibility there is new data out there."
ReplyDeleteAnd here's where we come to the actual theistic conception of faith: belief in spite of the data, or even contrary to them.
This is a topic that's been on my mind. Thanks for addressing with another insightful blog!
belief in spite of the data
ReplyDeleteRobert, I'm a theist who's always open to new data. I love data, not just the character on Star Trek. Could it be the data you interpret as important might seem wanting or neutral to me upon closer inspection?
"will you recognize that the “faith” you have may be different than the “faith” others have who do have more data, and reached different conclusions?" (Dagoods)
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think people need to be open to the fact they may be wrong - open to change on subjects.
I have also thought about this for some time - and for me to claim reasonableness - I need to be able to approach a subject with the best defense or argument possible. If someone is giving me a better conclusion - then I need to seriously consider their points (and possibly adapt).
I would say the faith I have is reasonable - in that I reason to what it is I am going to believe on a subject. I try not to overlook the evidence presented - all things need to be weighed for a correct measure to be taken. I try to do this with my faith and the teachings I study. Many reasonable people have changed my opinions in the past and likely will continue to - since my scholarship may be behind another persons.
"Yet, in the end, the data is incomplete, and they must make a leap of determination." (Dagoods)
While this is accurate - the data does require a leap of 'faith' - I think one's faith can be reasonably minded also.
I am not an atheist and I have great reasons for that conclusion. It's not that I know God better than someone else - or even have heard/seen God per se.
For me, and this is a personal thing, it's about the hope involved. Reasonably, for my community, the hope within faith is much brighter than the hope of choosing none. When I say this, I speak not to demean someone's atheism, but to mention what I see as truth in a neighborhood and reserve community I grew up in. The option towards God makes more sense on a basic moral level (but even that basic level is lacking for some in the community).
I recognize with Christianity there is some moral guidance for the believer (foundational documents to follow). Maybe that direction is needed for someone truly struggling to make sense of an impoverished or broken existence?
Now once they get cleaned up and want nothing to do with faith - I will be the first to shake their hand - but I have seen the absence of morality with those who claim 'no god' in the 'hood' - yeah - they aren't quite as enlightened as (m)any of the de-converts I have met on-line.
Foe me, there is a logical reason to defend faith - people and their circumstance in life. I know people will disagree with me - and that's fine. I grew up in dire situations (which still exist) - and seen what faith can do for those concerned with a better way to life (which is really all faith is about). I cannot just walk away from those people (and myself).
Jim Jordan wrote,"Robert, I'm a theist who's always open to new data. I love data, not just the character on Star Trek. Could it be the data you interpret as important might seem wanting or neutral to me upon closer inspection?"
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that the data may be interpreted differently. I speak more of those who simply ignore the data, or, though acknowledging them, choose to retain a belief which contradicts them, thinking such a course virtuous. Evangelical Christians tend to be such persons.
I know the type of Christian you're talking about, Poly. Liberty University in VA comes to mind. I always sense a combative motive for those folks, those who won't hear any other interpretation of Genesis than the literal, journalistic one, for example. Their tenacious hold on their beliefs looks more like political compulsion.
ReplyDeleteOne description for faith is revealed in how Christians are called to love God....with all our Mind, Heart, Soul, and Strength. We forget that first ingredient at our own peril.