# Fellow atheists: help me explain to believers that our morality is NOT faith based. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684 "2014-10-07T20:35:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/61 "2014-10-08T03:34:57Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s quite possible they’ll say “yes”, you know. “Fear of God is the only thing keeping everyone from running around robbing, raping and killing” is a common Christian argument. And I have heard Christians say that if God told them to murder someone then “by definition” murdering that person would be good and _not_ murdering them would be evil. > > That kind of “obedience to God” so-called morality is actually amoral, not moral IMHO. > [@P-man](#): > > As a Christian, I find that kind of thinking demonic (not that I believe in demons). But do you believe in the devil? ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/62 "2014-10-08T03:43:02Z")
a) I have a moral system. b) I do not have any faith. Therefore c) My moral system is not based in my faith. That’s glib, of course, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/63 "2014-10-08T04:27:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Question for the OP: Do you think Cubans are suffering at all? They’re very healthy. Have little risk of starvation. Yet, many would like to leave. How does that fit into your belief system? I don’t think Cubans are suffering much, by comparison to most countries. They seem to be doing pretty well. How is that at all relevant to morality, faith, and atheism, though? To the extent that a significant number of Cubans would like to leave, it’s because they are still a middle income country (albeit one without many of the problems of other middle income countries) and they live not very far away from a rich one. Same reason Mexicans want to leave Mexico (though unlike Mexicans, Cubans live in a safe country, as well as a fairly socially equal one). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/64 "2014-10-08T05:34:03Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > **I** , in constructing an ethical system, begin by choosing axioms which cannot be justified within the system itself. Now while selecting these axioms is certainly a matter of _aesthetics_–I choose the axioms I do because they appeal to me–I make no claim to be uniquely qualified in choosing them, nor do I claim that my axioms are unfalsifiable. > > For instance, my first axiom is that the survival of the human species is the highest good, while my second is that that the minimization of human suffering is the second highest good. While I firmly believe both of these are true, it’s possible that someone could disprove them to me. It’s always been my understanding that the selection of axioms are somewhat arbitrary, somewhat pragmatic. Generally speaking axioms are sufficiently fundamental that they are in a way beyond disprove, at least in a normative sense. In another sense one could say that one’s behavior does not match one’s moral system, but that’s a separate issue. I find it hard to imagine an ethical system without axioms, and I find it hard to imagine axioms that aren’t either based upon obvious observations or a degree of belief/faith. (Unshakeable faith though? Perhaps not.) > [@Voyager](#): > > First, there isn’t an atheist morality. There are lots of moral systems constructed by atheists, but they in no way represent a unified system. There will be similarities, possibly because of the verities LHoD mentioned and possibly because of our shared genetic heritage. > Individual moralities might have a belief component. I suspect Randian morality (which is atheistic) does. But you can also have a personal morality built from ethical principles without any beliefs. It seems to me that the selection of underlying ethical principles will involve a degree of belief by necessity. If you posit an axiom, you are saying it’s something that you can’t prove. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an axiom. More generally, most philosophical moral systems I’m aware of are mostly exercises in pure reasoning. (Utilitarianism has empirics in its application, but not foundationally AFAIK). And pure reasoning without observation has a weak track record outside of mathematics. It’s my understanding that a wholly defensible and non-problematic moral philosophy has yet to proposed, alas. It has been implied that such an effort is a mugs game. Is there a line between religious based morality and the philosophically grounded kind? Perhaps, but I can’t quite make it out. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Ok, i admit I didn’t read the whole thread but a text search on animals didn’t show anything so here goes: > Animals clearly have “moral systems”. It varies wildly from species to species but the more social the animal the more it tends towards kindness to your herd mates. So unless you posit that Bonobos are religious, clearly a morality is a nonreligious aspect of creatures. I do endorse efforts at scholarly descriptions of our moral sentiments. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/65 "2014-10-08T07:34:08Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I find it hard to imagine an ethical system without axioms, and I find it hard to imagine axioms that aren’t either based upon obvious observations or a degree of belief/faith. (Unshakeable faith though? Perhaps not.) It seems to me that the selection of underlying ethical principles will involve a degree of belief by necessity. If you posit an axiom, you are saying it’s something that you can’t prove. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an axiom. Ethical systems I’ve seen start with something like “we posit that we all wish to continue living” which can be turned into murder being wrong through reasoning. But that’s not belief, since it can also include a modification like - “those with painful terminal illnesses do not want to continue living, and thus assisting them in dying is ethical.” In any case extending the observation that I don’t want to die into the general axiom of people in general don’t want to die is somewhat different from belief. > [@](#): > > More generally, most philosophical moral systems I’m aware of are mostly exercises in pure reasoning. (Utilitarianism has empirics in its application, but not foundationally AFAIK). And pure reasoning without observation has a weak track record outside of mathematics. It’s my understanding that a wholly defensible and non-problematic moral philosophy has yet to proposed, alas. It has been implied that such an effort is a mugs game. > Is there a line between religious based morality and the philosophically grounded kind? Perhaps, but I can’t quite make it out. I do endorse efforts at scholarly descriptions of our moral sentiments. Ethical writings I have seen may involve lots of reasoning, but it also tests conclusions against various more or less real world scenarios. We might not agree on their results on how they should be resolved. Religious based morality has the nice feature that the axioms, attributed to god, can’t be argued with no matter what abhorrent behavior they lead to. If your axiom is that salvation is only available through Jesus, and that eternal torment is the punishment for those who do not accept it, short term torture to force conversions becomes ethical. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/66 "2014-10-08T08:15:05Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I find it hard to imagine an ethical system without axioms, and I find it hard to imagine axioms that aren’t either based upon obvious observations or a degree of belief/faith. (Unshakeable faith though? Perhaps not.) It seems to me that the selection of underlying ethical principles will involve a degree of belief by necessity. If you posit an axiom, you are saying it’s something that you can’t prove. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an axiom. It doesn’t have to involve faith. For example, “I like the idea” isn’t a claim based on objective fact or logic, but it’s not based on faith either. It’s just personal preference. Neither is “Well, we had to use an axiom so I thought I’d try this one and see where it led” based on faith. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/67 "2014-10-08T10:23:28Z")
Just last night I heard a great talk by philosopher John Symonds about what might happen if and when artificial intelligence reaches the Von Neumann “singularity” – when computers get smart enough that they don’t “need” us humans anymore to keep getting yet smarter. Much of his talk was about the existence, or not, of a universal moral code. To what extent would this computerized being have to look to US (by reading all our SDMB messages and all the other digital human output it would surely have access to) to figure out what its goals should be? And, how soon (if ever) would it move beyond the human-designed goals embedded in its initial programming? (Think of even a simple software program today of having some specific “purposes” – for some reason, “collecting paper clips” is a popular example for these scholars of the post-human.) The part most relevant to the OP was when Symonds discussed the possible “purpose(s)” of the human species collectively (before it inevitably ceases to exist, as all species eventually do), and this by extension what purpose each of us might feel individually – what we hope to accomplish before we inevitably die. “Keeping the species going as long as possible” did come up as a possibly irrefutable “good thing” – but is it really, as far as the universe is concerned? This recalled, for me, a fascinating new book by a geologist with a Polish last name I’ll look up in a minute, which carefully investigates what evidence of humans alien geologists would find when they visit Earth a hundred million years in the future. It contains the best short description of anthropogenic climate change and extinctions, and there are some cool surprises. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/68 "2014-10-08T10:31:44Z")
Here it is: [The Earth After Us](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199214980?pc_redir=1412415042&robot_redir=1), by Jan Zalasiewicz. (2008, so not _that_ new). ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/69 "2014-10-08T10:48:38Z")
One more thing – apropos of the exchange in the post just up thread between Der Trihs and Measure for Measure, Symonds’ current scholarly work is about how it’s impossible to fully check for errors any software typically used by scientists. There really is a kind of “faith” involved that the software’s errors are minimal enough that it doesn’t affect the results too deeply. Even if they aren’t aware of this mathematical fact, scientists think and behave in ways that acknowledge such limitations. They are flexible, and do incorporate feelings about elegance and aesthetics into their assessments of data. Even a post-human supercomputer would face the same limitation, and have to come up with ways to “fudge” it. (This is thematically related to, but not the same as, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem). In response to a question from the audience, Symonds gave an example of this: the software used by airliners for automated collision avoidance. Since we can’t check all possible programming “pathways” for errors (requires the lifespan of the universe, many many times over), instead we run the software with a flight simulator a few thousand times, and if it works okay, we hope for the best…and if later there IS a crash, and there’s a trial and the software’s programmers might be to “blame,” that due diligence would probably pass the jury’s concept of “making a reasonable effort.” All human ways of fudging around the ineffable complexity and unpredictability of the real world out there. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/70 "2014-10-08T10:49:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So unless you posit that Bonobos are religious, clearly a morality is a nonreligious aspect of creatures. Chimpanzees show evidence of religiosity, so I wouldn’t discount bonobo religion so quickly. Some form of Tantra, probably. As to the OP - the way I see it, “faith” is belief without evidence. But I have evidence or logical arguments for the ethics I espouse, so they are not faith-based. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/71 "2014-10-08T13:02:52Z")
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] I, in constructing an ethical system, begin by choosing axioms which cannot be justified within the system itself. [/QUOTE] In other words, it is faith-based. > [@](#): > > A Christian, Muslim, or other theist, by contrast, is taking a unprovable assertion on faith: specifically that a creator deity exists and has moral opinions, and that this deity’s morality is unimpeachable and its directives comprehensible to humans. I don’t see much contrast. It can’t be proven that human happiness or the good of the human species has moral relevance, nor that human survival can be brought about. Just the opposite - most people accept that they will die as individuals and that the human race will eventually become extinct. The assertion that it is in some sense important whether that extinction happens tomorrow or three thousand years from now isn’t provable either. And if atheism is true, then human happiness consists of electro-chemical activities in a certain part of the brain, and suffering is electro-chemical activity in another part a few inches away. Therefore a moral system based on the desire for happiness over suffering is exactly equivalent to a moral system that says having the light in the front hallway burning is the highest good imaginable, whereas evil consists of leaving the light in the bathroom on overnight. > [@](#): > > …nor do I claim that my axioms are unfalsifiable. In what way could your moral system be falsifed? If you are saying that there are some other principles that can be proven instead of assumed, what are they and how are they proven? If there aren’t, then what other way is there to disprove or prove your system of morality? If you are just asserting “here are my principles - I can’t prove them but I will assume them until you disprove them” then your system is no different from any other system of morals. Literally any other - saying “morality is the destiny of the _herrenvolk_” or “whatever is, is right” or “morality consists of me taking whatever I want” is doing the same thing. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/72 "2014-10-08T13:50:27Z")
It seems there is some struggle to define what “faith” is, for the purpose of this discussion. It is not a well-defined term. Is it “take something as a given”? Then it doesn’t matter whether the “giver” is Jehovah himself, or simply an axiom chosen for the sake of convenience or on a whim, or because it feels right intuitively. In that case, I would assume pretty well everyone uses “faith” as the basis for morality, as it is difficult to disprove any particular set of moral axioms except by contrasting them with another set. [A point of distinction could then be that theists are stuck with their axioms because they have to accept what they are “given” by their religion, but this can be overplayed - there is a lot of variation within any given religion]. If it means a “faith” as in a particularly religious faith, then of course the morality of atheists is not “faith based”, except insofar as the particular atheist has adopted or adapted moral precepts that emerge from a faith-based system of morality. For myself, I think morality is ultimately based on empathy for and reciprocity among concious beings - but I do not think this is really subject to disproof; if pressed, I’d have to say I believe it because it feels right, because it seems to be at the base of a lot of moral systems - in short, that I take it as a given. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/73 "2014-10-08T15:08:05Z")
I understand the aversion to using the term “faith.” But I also understand where the argument for using it comes from even though it might not be the most appropriate term. I agree that in an atheistic universe morals are aesthetic preferences. If one were to claim that blue is the best color and murder is wrong and someone were to ask, “Why?” over and over, at the end it boils down to “because it appeals to me.” The axioms you build up from aren’t supported by anything more than personal preference. But, other than the existence of a God where God’s will = good by definition, I don’t see any other options. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/74 "2014-10-08T15:31:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > In other words, it is faith-based. That’s not faith. > [@](#): > > I don’t see much contrast. It can’t be proven that human happiness or the good of the human species has moral relevance, nor that human survival can be brought about. Just the opposite - most people accept that they will die as individuals and that the human race will eventually become extinct. The assertion that it is in some sense important whether that extinction happens tomorrow or three thousand years from now isn’t provable either. Who says it has to be proven? > [@](#): > > And if atheism is true, then human happiness consists of electro-chemical activities in a certain part of the brain, and suffering is electro-chemical activity in another part a few inches away. Therefore a moral system based on the desire for happiness over suffering is exactly equivalent to a moral system that says having the light in the front hallway burning is the highest good imaginable, whereas evil consists of leaving the light in the bathroom on overnight. This is no different than your moral system – a moral system’s validity is exactly how we determine it is, whether or not it’s based on a higher power or not. You can say “mine is superior because it comes from God”, but that doesn’t make it superior or more valid or more consistent. > [@](#): > > If you are just asserting “here are my principles - I can’t prove them but I will assume them until you disprove them” then your system is no different from any other system of morals. Literally any other - saying “morality is the destiny of the _herrenvolk_” or “whatever is, is right” or “morality consists of me taking whatever I want” is doing the same thing. This is how all moral systems work. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/75 "2014-10-08T15:44:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And if atheism is true, then human happiness consists of electro-chemical activities in a certain part of the brain, and suffering is electro-chemical activity in another part a few inches away. Therefore a moral system based on the desire for happiness over suffering is exactly equivalent to a moral system that says having the light in the front hallway burning is the highest good imaginable, whereas evil consists of leaving the light in the bathroom on overnight. > In what way could your moral system be falsifed? If you are saying that there are some other principles that can be proven instead of assumed, what are they and how are they proven? If there aren’t, then what other way is there to disprove or prove your system of morality? > > If you are just asserting “here are my principles - I can’t prove them but I will assume them until you disprove them” then your system is no different from any other system of morals. Literally any other - saying “morality is the destiny of the _herrenvolk_” or “whatever is, is right” or “morality consists of me taking whatever I want” is doing the same thing. > > Regards, > Shodan 1. Atheism isn’t the same as _physicalism_ (i.e. the claim that mind = brain and mental properties reduce to physical properties). I think physicalism is insane, but that doesn’t mean that atheism is. You can be a dualist and an atheist. (N.B. I’m a Christian theist). 2. The fact that the axioms are unprovable is no different than any other moral system, religious or irreligious. Even if you proved that God existed (I believe he does, of course), that wouldn’t equate to proving that His commands ought to be followed. I choose to believe in Jesus Christ at least partly because he was a perfectly good Man (well, God-man, but leave that aside), based on the accounts in the Gospels. Many of his followers did the same. (They didn’t follow him just because he did miracles- the devil can do miracles, too). But that presupposes that they, and we, have a standard of goodness independent of God. Which we do- it comes from our natures and intuition. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/76 "2014-10-08T15:45:52Z")
Shorter response to Shodan: as the majority of Christian thinkers and churches have always recognized (and as Plato recognized, too) divine command theory is a nonstarter. Some Christians, like Calvin, thought otherwise. They’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/77 "2014-10-08T15:46:18Z")
Seems to me the question comes down to a semantic one about the meaning of the word “faith” in English. A theist may have a “gotcha” moment by saying to an atheist “your morality is faith-based; my morality is faith-based. We are the same”, but this really relies on a trick of English - that “faith” can mean ‘taking something as axiomatic’ as well as ‘a religion’ (and includes ‘taking something as axiomatic because of a religion’) If that is the case, the best response (at least, for me) would be ‘yes, but the things I take ‘on faith’ are not set by a religion, but are chosen based on my conscience, which I trust to be a better guide to morality today than a bunch of rules laid down a long time ago in a radically different society’. Edit: naturally, many if not most religious peiople do pick and choose based on conscience as well; it is where they do not, that we are likely to have an argument. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/78 "2014-10-08T16:41:21Z")
It is basically the agnostic’s long outstanding question to God, if you are God prove yourself (prove me wrong). You have expressed faith in yourself to come up with ethical rules and the willingness to stand by them even if you are wrong… unless … a condition you have established happens, that they can prove to you that you are wrong - this is a condition of your faith, I am right until proven to my standards I am wrong. It is a faith, no question. It is tempting God. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/79 "2014-10-08T16:44:16Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It is basically the agnostic’s long outstanding question to God, if you are God prove yourself (prove me wrong). > > You have expressed faith in yourself to come up with ethical rules and the willingness to stand by them even if you are wrong… unless … a condition you have established happens, that they can prove to you that you are wrong - this is a condition of your faith, I am right until proven to my standards I am wrong. It is a faith, no question. You do not know what the word “faith” means, **kanicbird**. Or else you’re using it in so idiosyncratic a fashion as to render it as meaningless as the word “Democratic” in the formal name of North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/80 "2014-10-08T16:55:44Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > One more thing – apropos of the exchange in the post just up thread between Der Trihs and Measure for Measure, Symonds’ current scholarly work is about how it’s impossible to fully check for errors any software typically used by scientists. There really is a kind of “faith” involved that the software’s errors are minimal enough that it doesn’t affect the results too deeply. Even if they aren’t aware of this mathematical fact, scientists think and behave in ways that acknowledge such limitations. They are flexible, and do incorporate feelings about elegance and aesthetics into their assessments of data. Even a post-human supercomputer would face the same limitation, and have to come up with ways to “fudge” it. (This is thematically related to, but not the same as, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem). It’s impossible to fully check any nontrivial piece of software used by anyone. The results of the stuff I write drive multi-million dollar decisions. I’ve not observed any major faith in my results, which is appropriate. I’d suspect that scientific software is just like a hypothesis. When the software is new, your are very suspicious of the results and test them frequently. At a certain point it becomes production - like a hypothesis becomes a theory. Your level of trust in it depends on how much it is used successfully - but new use cases (relativistic velocities) and highlight flaws. I don’t think this has anything to do with faith, unless you are one of those who claim that science is faith-based because not everyone can reproduce everything. And I’m sure you’re not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684.md?page=5)