# Hardwired for Atheism

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hardwired-for-atheism/108859>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [May 13, 2002, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hardwired-for-atheism/108859 "2002-05-13T17:57:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hardwired-for-atheism/108859/21 "2002-05-14T20:45:49Z")

</div>

Sorry about my earlier, malformed reply. I accidentally hit the _Submit_ button too soon. Let’s try this again.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Apos \*  
> \*\*—Contrary to what many atheists (and theists!) believe, faith does not automatically mean believing without evidence, or believing despite the evidence. It means putting your trust in that which is unproven, but which you (ideally at least) consider to be worthy of trust.—
> 
> But that is simply faith without or despite evidence. \*\*

Not, it isn’t. There is a tremendous difference between “evidence” and “proof,” as I just pointed out. In fact, I emphasized this very point – quite emphatically – earlier in this thread. One can have faith in something which is unproven, but for which one still has evidence.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*That’s exactly what trust is: especially when the thing you are trusting in has no evidence to support it. You don’t need to trust in something you’re sure of. \*\*

Once again though, you’re painting a caricature. Contrary to your claim, “faith without or despite evidence” is NOT “exactly what trust is.” Faith and trust can be blind, but they can also be based on evidence. Consider the large number of historians who believe that Jesus Christ actually existed, for example, despite the lack of absolute proof. Many of them even believe that He rose from the dead, based on the historical evidence.

You claim that trust means having faith “without or despite evidence.” That simply isn’t true, and such thinking reflects the _fallacy of the excluded middle_. People can believe in things which are proven, and they can believe in things for which there is no evidence. However, there is a wide range of possibilities between those two extremes – that is, belief in things for which one considers evidence to exist, but for which absolute proof is elusive or otherwise absent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [May 14, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hardwired-for-atheism/108859/22 "2002-05-14T20:53:12Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tracer \*  
> \*\*Libertarian wrote:  
> There’s evidence linking a less-than-adequate limbic system with incidence of atheism?
> 
> Um … cite, please? \*\*

I didn’t mean to imply inadequacy in any sense except the discernment of things spiritual. See [Phantoms in the Brain](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688172172/qid=1021409395/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-2267410-2860904), in particular the chapter titled “God and the Limbic System”.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hardwired-for-atheism/108859.md?page=1)