Yes, even atheists have faith

Great Debates
1

All right, as most people here are probably aware by now, I consider myself to be an atheist. In particular, I affirmatively disbelieve in the traditional concepts of God as described in the Bible, the Qur’an, etc. I do acknowledge that there might be some sort of God somewhere in the universe, although the complete lack of evidence as to his existence leads me to doubt it.

Faith, it has been said, is opposed to reason. And by faith, I mean “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (to quote Merriam-Webster. I am willing to acknowledge, however, that even an atheist such as myself must have a firm belief in things for which there is no proof.

I have faith that I exist in the material sense and that I am not just a disembodied consciousness dreaming my life. I cannot prove this to be so, but I accept it as true nonetheless.

I have faith in the principle of causality (i.e., that every material effect must have a prior, necessary, and adequate cause). I cannot prove this, but I believe it nonetheless.

I have faith in the principle of uniformity (i.e., that similar effects have similar causes), both with regard to time and space. I cannot prove it, but I firmly believe it.

Etc., etc., etc.

I cannot prove any of these assumptions that underly my personal world view, any more than a theist can prove that God exists. I do think, however, that my faith is not necessarily “blind.” When asked to prove that the scientific method is valid, I can only point to the many instances in which it has enabled people to make predictions which have come true. I do not, however, simply say that the world is the way I believe it to be because that is the way I was taught.

Yes, perhaps we are all living in “The Matrix” and what we perceive as cause and effect is carefully controlled for our benefit. Perhaps we live in a special bubble apart from the rest of creation in time and space, and the physical “laws” we observe apply only to us. I see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, however.

So yes, as an atheist I have faith that the world makes sense and can be understood. Unlike religious faith, however, my faith lets me make predictions that actually come true more often than not, and does not result in internal inconsistencies.

I’m sorry. I just felt a burning need to “witness.” Carry on…

Regards,

Barry

2

Faith is not belief with an absence of proof. It’s belief regardless of proof for or against. It’s belief-by-will-to-believe. A true believer in God shouldn’t care that someone has come up with a proof of his existence, since his faith needs no proof to shore it up.

Your belief in the principle of causality, in your material existence, in uniformity, is subject to whatever evidence comes down the line, and is therefore conditional in its foundations. That you can’t proove them doesn’t make them faithful.

3

You’re mistaken about me at least (an atheist). I do not believe or have faith in the principle of causality. It’s something I’ll generally assume for the sake of being able to function at all (intelligible inquiry into the world around me would be impossible without it), but I have no way to evaluate it’s truth and I certainly do not have any reason to support claiming that it is a universal principle. Same for uniforminty and other such foundational principles. They are what you might term optimistic assumptions: we assume them because without them, we would have no hope of learning about the world around us. But in a philosophical sense we can not, and should not, claim to believe them.

So I think your faith in these principles is misguided.

4

I think this is just an alternative meaning of faith.

I am an atheist, because there is no evidence of any God.

I have ‘faith’ that e.g. gravity will continue, so I don’t need to tie myself down to stop me flying out into space.
Perhaps we should say ‘confidence’…

5

I think you’re being a bit rough on religious people - sure, some fundies would believe regardless of proof against. (See the evolution debates for evidence.) But I think most reasonable theists simply have faith with an absence of proof.

I do have some faith in reason, the existence of a real world and similar philosophical concepts. Against pure solipsism I have no argument except a variant of Pascal’s wager.

As for causality, I’m not so big on that since I did quantum mechanics in my physics degree at uni :slight_smile:

6

godzillatemple, would you still have faith in causality if you had never seen strong evidence for it? Would you maintain your faith in uniformity if you had seen countless counterexamples? Assuming your answer is no, then I’d contend you don’t have faith, but have used an intuitive version of the scientific method to come to your conclusions.

A man might have “faith” in the “faithfulness” of his wife. This is good. If he maintains that faith when he finds a naked man in his closet, he’s a fool (and the subject of countless cartoons.)

7

Schroedinger’s Equation has no more statements about causality than Maxwell’s Equations have about aether.

8

Schroedinger’s Equation has no more statements about causality than Maxwell’s Equations have about aether.

9

You don’t need to have faith in any of that stuff, Barry. All evidence I’m aware of suggests they exist. So what you’re saying is false for me as well.

Is it me, or do we have a need to debate this subject again every week? :wink:

10

Merely “generally assuming” that the principle of causality is valid may allow you to “function at all,” but if you don’t actually believe it to be true then it’s silly to even attempt to make “intelligent inquiry into the world around you.” Any scientist who wants to explore and explain the world must believe in the principle of causality, otherwise he would know that scientific inquiry is useless.

I would submit that assuming a principle to be true to the extent that you order your life around that principle is equivalent to believing in that principle for all intents and purposes. The difference, if any, is mere semantics and not particularly meaningful. A Christian might as well say that he merely assumes that God exists, and therefore prays to God and expects to receive blessings as a result, but doesn’t actually believe in God.

Regards,

Barry

11

You can submit it, but it’s wrong. The fact that I play a video game in which I pretend to be a tiny Italian plumber doesn’t mean I really believe that I am. I freely admit that I do NOT believe the principles are demonstrably true… and yet you want to say that, against all that, I DO believe they are? Believing is a real action, a real act of affirmation. You can’t just make not believing into believing anymore than you can make down up and up down.

I wouldn’t have any problem with a Christian who says that: would you (though I’m not sure they would really be a Christian)?

12

I think you’re confusing assumptions with faith.

Assumptions are beliefs we work with because they seem to work, seem to make sense, and we don’t have the time to prove everything to ourselves. Our relative belief in them tends to be based on their efficacy and utility, not on some privileged status.

13

I think my belief in reason and reality is deeper than an assumption, which is why I was prepared to use the word “faith”. I take that to mean that I believe something for which there is no logical or scientific proof, and which I know can’t be proved. I do have some assumptions, too - like that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Reason underlies science; it can’t be used to prove itself. And there really is no way we can prove that we’re not in the matrix - it’s an old philosophical chestnut dressed up - it was “the brain in a vat” problem when I did beginners philosophy.

Does “faith” have religious connotations to some people? Is that why you don’t want to use the word, uglybeech?

14

Respectfully, you’re missing the point, cajela. We might as well say that we are in the Matrix: since there’s no way to distinguish a truly perfect simulation from “reality”, it IS reality.

15

I don’t think I’m being rough at all; I think I’m giving the most charitable possible view on faith, namely that it truly is faith, and not simply some sort of pig-headed pseudo-certainty. I said it’s “belief by will to believe”, and to me that’s the only way that faith makes sense, and has any value; otherwise, it’s simple stubbornness.

16

Well, no, TVAA, I disagree. The matrix/brain in a vat/pure solipsism has one very important distinction from reality - it’s all in my mind. There are no other people. You, for instance, do not exist.

Now that means that whatever I do is morally neutral. There are no other people who coud be hurt or helped by my actions. When I die the entire universe disappears, so there’s no sense saving art or history or natural resources for the next generation. Politics is irrelevant as it’s all stories in my head.

I think that makes a big difference to how one choose to live - indeed, a modified version of Pascal’s wager comes in. What if you act on each option? One way makes you a sociopath and your life meaningless; the other way gives your life some meaning in your impact on the world around you.

So I say I have faith in reality, because I really can’t disprove pure solipsism, and yet I do not believe it.

17

We construct simplified mental models of the universe so that we can predict short, medium and long term events in our minds, to some degree of accuracy, and act accordingly.

These simplifications make use of certain assumptions, generalized over numerous observations, and correlations thereamong.

Causality, uniformity etc. are examples of these assumptions. They are averages of pertinent coefficients of our observations thus far. Should our observations suddenly change their behavior, so will the average of pertinent coefficients, so will our assumptions based on these coefficients, and so will our mental model based thereon.

The whole thing is purely mathematical and conditional upon observation. It has nothing to do with faith whatsoever.

18

** Of course I do. In order to make a perfect simulation of a being, you inevitably need to contruct a working model – and that IS a being.

If we remove half of the brain-in-the-jar and replace it with a completely accurate simulation of the brain matter’s functions, does that mean you only partly exist? What if we remove the brain altogether, replacing it entirely with a simulation?

If the simulation is truly perfect (which as it happens could only occur by coincidence – no such simulation can intentionally be designed, due to some of the consequences of information theory), it will never have any bugs, inconsistencies, or lapses that would indicate a “realer” world. The simulation IS reality.

19

I think I see…

(editing mine)
.
This is certainly evidence that faith doesn’t exist…
Is there an exorcist in the house?

20

** godzillatemple, ** your logic is sound. It is human nature to have faith in things that are seemingly common sense, whether or not you have proof. God is not one of these things =)

I have faith that an undiscovered and comprehesible answer to the mystery of the Universe exists - though as you say, I cannot prove it. I can only point out that it exists, therefore a reason for its existence must also exist. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then it seems to me that this answer is already floating around. I just hope it doesnt float in one ear and out the other when I finally hear it.